Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by switching yard
Excerpts from the chapter "Humpty Dumpty" in Through The Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll... keep in mind John Lennon was referring to this chapter when he sang "I am the eggman. They are the eggmen."...

"The face is what one goes by, generally," Alice remarked in a thoughtful tone..."

Seems like a hint to look at *someone's* face...

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Great catch! Bill just got cocky - thought no one would catch little things like that.

Lighting a cigi for Damon, no doubt he knows the score - And I have to admit, as pretentious as the little Chelsea twat is, Blurs lead singer has more talent in his little finger than Bill/Faul.

That reminds me Faulcon, have a quick look at this vid. It`s a review of 90`s "Britpop."

At 7.26 Graham Coxon (lead guitarist with the band "Blur") said - "so many weird things had been happening... (pause)... that if Damon was suddenly a lizard in a mod suit I wouldn`t have been surprised."

This was in response to Damons hanging out at Westminister and being influenced by British "New Labour" politics -





[edit on 1-9-2009 by Uncle Benny]

Originally posted by aorAki
Does he have 6 toes on his right (our left) foot?!!!

He does have some gnarly feet :-P



Paul's - not gnarly.



Is it really just a matter of counting the toes? lol

[edit on 1-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

[edit on 1-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
And I have to admit, as pretentious as the little Chelsea twat is, Blurs lead singer has more talent in his little finger than Bill/Faul.

Who doesn't? lol

At 7.26 Graham Coxon (lead guitarist with the band "Blur") said - "...a lizard in a mod suit ...."

OMG! That's is pretty interesting...

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


That's Mr Hooknose in the first pic!!
I find it odd that his features change so much.

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
Very much so -

- 25 seconds... A second "Paul" appears in the shot.

- 40 seconds... Bill sings, "I think of everything to be discovered."

- 58 seconds... Just coming into the chorus as Bill sings... "My ever present past," a similar suited man walks by the camera and clicks his fingers.

- 1.32 min... Again a second "Paul" walks onto the set.


What is this... "Ever Present Past" Bill/Faul is referring to.......Hmmmm!

One other thing I forgot to mention about this video - note Bills backing dancers.

Apart from the fact that they`re all beautiful women lol, they all look exactly the same - Same black suits, same heels, same colour (redish) hair, same length of hair.

We are talking about a man (Bill/Faul) who is a double and tries in every way to appear exactly as his replacement!



[edit on 1-9-2009 by Uncle Benny]

Originally posted by Floh
After reading this thread for several days, it's become apparent the person called Paul McCartney isn't Paul McCartney. as has already been pointed out, Paul McCartney was charismatic. Faul never has been charismatic. and talented.

i have no doubt Paul Left in 1966 and was replaced. Faul has not one drop of charisma. the camera doesn't love Faul.

and also, more importantly, Paul could write.

Great post Floh, glad you can see the differences!

link for the following scene

www.youtube.com...

It's an nteresting scene in LET IT BE... Macca has his back to the camera but you hear his voice and he's saying the following to John, who stares at Macca during this monologue but says nothing, just smoking deep puffs and staring at Macca...

MACCA: "When we came back from Hamburg and did Lester Dumont Ford Hall or whatever is was, Coventry. You know, we played the ballroom and we had the worst first night then and it was terrible. And we played another the next night and it got a little better, and the next night and then the next. It was too much man, we were playing, we got over the hang up of audience, it was like no one was there, but it was a new sort of thing and there was some fellow in front watching how you're playing, you know, and we were just right into it and those were The Beatles, you could have recorded those things and it would have been the greatest and it's like now they're saying that band's "in" you know, and we're good at that once we get over the nervousness. But like, the hurdle of that nervousness is there now, so there, you know, we can't get over it now. Well, you know, unless we really sort of go to the Albert Hall and get in a ...(unintelligible)... or the other alternative to that is to say we won't ever do it to an audience again, you know. But if we intend to keep any kind of contact on that scene... but I do understand George just saying well there's no point, you know, because it is like we're Stravinsky and it's in the studio and he doesn't get up and play his Joanna for them anymore."

If I were a PIA, I would say that clip is proof that it's the Original Paul saying those things and making specific reference to The Beatles performances when they returned from Hamburg.

The PID angle might be that Intel coached the double to make this monologue and to make sure it got on film because it so strongly connects the present with the past in terms of evidence that this "Paul" was the Original Paul. It's kind of a proof. To me, the most interesting aspect of the scene is that the camera is on John's face and he seems uncomfortable in the extreme and says nothing. He reacts to all this with just a hard stare (or glare) that seems to vibe something like 'I'm on to what you're doing and I'll play along by just sitting here and taking this.'

So, it seems very much like proof that Paul was never replaced. But the PID angle would be that it was coached prior to delivery on film and it's in the film for the purpose of a little "proof" for the masses that Macca is bona fide the real thing.

This one really stretches the credibility of the overall PID theory because the little speech is delivered in such a seemingly natural and spontaneous manner, but the fascinating thing is Lennon is sitting there and he knows the truth, so if only we could read John's mind during this little speech Macca pops on him. Macca did make sure this was recorded on film and it did get into the movie so it is of some importance. Obviously, John's response, if any, was not deemed important as we cut away to something completely different.

[edit on 1-9-2009 by switching yard]

[edit on 1-9-2009 by switching yard]

One more thing about that Macca speech... a PID angle might be that this was coached and sprung on John to kind of catch John off guard in the hopes that John would be goaded into chiming in with "Yeah, remember the night we were in (whatever hall)..."

So, like, if it was meant to get a reminiscing chat going with John in order to really drive home that these are the original Beatles here chatting, then the funny thing is that John refuses to take the bait. He doesn't reminisce, he doesn't participate in talking warmly of the old times or the good old days, in fact he is stone cold to this whole rap Macca is laying on him.

Hmmm.

Originally posted by switching yard
link for the following scene

www.youtube.com...

It's an nteresting scene in LET IT BE... Macca has his back to the camera but you hear his voice and he's saying the following to John, who stares at Macca during this monologue but says nothing, just smoking deep puffs and staring at Macca...

John's body language in that clip is hilarious (starting around 6). He seems unengaged & annoyed. I bet he's just thinking bla bla bla to himself. lol But the way he stretches & smokes & isn't really paying attention... he even puts his head down ... it's clear he's not interested.

Anyway, i really like this video comp.




[edit on 1-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

I've watched that LET IT BE scene several times now (referenced a couple of posts back) to just try to hear if Macca could have been coached on the early history and stuff. If so, it's an excellent performance by Macca. When film audiences saw that scene just in passing when the film was in theatrical release, I think they would have just got the impression of the word Hamburg equating to the early Beatles and thought 'Oh yeah, he's talkin' about the early days there.'

So, if it was premeditated, let's say, then Macca only has to toss out the word Hamburg and follow with Dumont Hall and Coventry and then all the rest is just blah blah rambling. But it was key to get those venues mentioned, it seems.

After repeated viewings, John looks not only annoyed but pretty steamed. I would say he looks to be P.O.'d that he's being subjected to something distasteful here. If this scene were legit with Original Paul, I don't think it would have played out like this at all. Just a gut feeling. John seems to want to say 'Look you (expletive), I don't need a trip down memory lane with the likes of you and I don't need a lecture so bugger off.' Or he may be thinking "I get your little ploy here, but I'm not going to legitimize you so shut the f*** up.' I can kind of sense those vibes from Lennon.

Originally posted by switching yard
I've watched that LET IT BE scene several times now (referenced a couple of posts back) to just try to hear if Macca could have been coached on the early history and stuff. If so, it's an excellent performance by Macca.

He may have had a script :-P But yeah, no doubt he learned the "legacy" of Paul's life. It's his cover after all.

Check this out. The new Beatles Rock Band (being released on 9-9-09 quite coincidentally) uses footage of Bill from a "Hey Jude" photo shoot. Interesting how they made it seem (almost) real. It goes to the illusion creation...








[edit on 1-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by switching yard
I've watched that LET IT BE scene several times now (referenced a couple of posts back) to just try to hear if Macca could have been coached on the early history and stuff. If so, it's an excellent performance by Macca. When film audiences saw that scene just in passing when the film was in theatrical release, I think they would have just got the impression of the word Hamburg equating to the early Beatles and thought 'Oh yeah, he's talkin' about the early days there.'

Yeah Bills ego gives him away every time, the man has a talent for going on and on about absolutely nothing in particular. It must have been difficult for the rest to listen to this manure especially with the camera in their faces. John knows Bill`s putting on this charade for the tape and he has no interest in helping him out.

If this scene were legit with Original Paul, I don't think it would have played out like this at all. Just a gut feeling. John seems to want to say 'Look you (expletive), I don't need a trip down memory lane with the likes of you and I don't need a lecture so bugger off.' Or he may be thinking "I get your little ploy here, but I'm not going to legitimize you so shut the f*** up.' I can kind of sense those vibes from Lennon.

John and Paul were so natural in each others company, one would start a sentence, the other finish. They came across as proud Scousers, proud of who they were and the people they represented. The familiarity was evident, almost telepathic.

That television commercial for Rock Band commercializes the Beatles and in a weird way makes them and the 'followers' (I guess that's the best description) seem lacking souls, lacking individualism. I think it's creepy. It eerily reminds me of Jim Jones telling people "drink the Kool-Aid, it's good for you." Does anybody else get a creepy feeling from that commercial?

It seems like a pack of hypnotized or lobotomized zombies, like a sort of night of the living dead in the daytime. I think John and George would not have approved this commercial. It's freakin' creepy, man.

Also, I'm wondering how the PIA camp would explain the apparent lack of friendship between John and Macca in the LET IT BE film. Simple question... why does John seem to dislike Macca so intensely in LET IT BE? What caused such a rift in their relationship? I don't get it.



[edit on 2-9-2009 by switching yard]

Originally posted by switching yard
It seems like a pack of hypnotized or lobotomized zombies

Isn't that like the majority of the populace? lol :-P Seriously. A lot of people are sleep-walking & don't notice little things like how people get replaced.

The 'pid' agenda reaches new lows. Although I can't say I'm shocked.

We have old uncle benny labelling people he doesn't even know "pretentious twats" whilst simultaneously trying to incur some kind of link between a 90's pop band and Paul McCartney via an innocuous picture, and then we have faulcon and co. trying to claim that Paul is some kind of mutant with ''six toes''.

You couldn't make it up although you do seem to be trying your best to
all the same.

Bill's mouth is wider, his ears don't stick out as much as Paul's, & the tip of his nose comes down in a "u" shape in a way that Paul's didn't.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Bill's mouth is wider, his ears don't stick out as much as Paul's, & the tip of his nose comes down in a "u" shape in a way that Paul's didn't.

That's called AGEING !!

In one picture he is 20 odd and the next the man is in his late 50's
if not early 60's for crying out loud.

John Lennon





The above is also a great example of how Faulcon makes her bogus claims
about facial discrepancies.

If you showed the above pics to someone who didn't know of John Lennon
I am quite sure they might claim that those pictures show two different individuals.

Yet faulcon has made a whole thread's worth out of it on here, posting images of a young Paul with an older Paul etc without allowing for the fashions and trend changes that the Beatles underwent as a band and as they matured and got older.

As penn & teller might say her 'evidence' is BULLS**T!

I bid you all a very goodnight.

[edit on 2-9-2009 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by pmexplorer
and then we have faulcon and co. trying to claim that Paul is some kind of mutant with ''six toes''.

Did you see the picture? It does look like he has six toes in it. It was an observation of that particular picture for goodness sake....you still can't leave out the veiled insults and, Iknow, you'll come crying saying something about you not insulting anyone or some such guff, but every single ohblahdi time it seems there is some snide comment.

It does appear that he is a mutant of sorts though

Originally posted by pmexplorer
As penn & teller might say her 'evidence' is BULLS**T!

I bid you all a very goodnight.

It's rather more like the Curate's Egg than that, but we clearly have laid our cards on the table so, unless you are willing to actually open your eyes rather than reply with what seems to be a knee-jerk and blinkered response there is no 'hope' that you will ever allow yourself to see the possibility that your beloved Paul may well have been replaced.


....or rather, it seems a case of 'never the twain shall meet'.

Originally posted by pmexplorer
The 'pid' agenda reaches new lows. Although I can't say I'm shocked.

We have old uncle benny labelling people he doesn't even know "pretentious twats" whilst simultaneously trying to incur some kind of link between a 90's pop band and Paul McCartney via an innocuous picture, and then we have faulcon and co. trying to claim that Paul is some kind of mutant with ''six toes''.

You couldn't make it up although you do seem to be trying your best to
all the same.

I`m not comparing Damon Albarn to two different men, I`m comparing him to Bill/Faul NOT Paul McCartney as you should be well aware by now - but then you are proving yourself a tad slow in the "upstairs" department.

I believe Bill had little or no input to the later Beatles material - the man was a double stand-in replacement. Taken en block Albarns work is streets ahead of Bills solo material.



[edit on 2-9-2009 by Uncle Benny]

Mod Edit: Please refrain from attacking your fellow members and going off topic!

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Gemwolf]