Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

The original Beatles were not innocent or sweet. They were no angels and were tough, hard, smart. self taught, cynical, jaded, irreverent, very hard working, chain smoking, skirt chasing, risk taking, stoned, outspoken, controversial, and fiercely iconoclastic.

You won't see those qualities in the current rewriting of history that's underway now with all the propaganda out there trying to make The Beatles sweet and lovable.

Keith Richards said that he had to give John credit "for kickin' the door in" meaning that the British Invasion was no accident. Lennon made it happen by sheer force.

TPTB saw in The Beatles a raw power to influence the masses and they set about to use it to their sinister purposes. A mind control experiment ensued relying on Tavistock techniques and '___' and handlers. The experiment continues today as "Paul" keeps embarking on world tours and propaganda like Rock Band Beatles further brainwashes the masses.

Originally posted by Getsmart

You've got my undivided attention as this thread has heightened my awareness of things gone amiss in this world leading to the event of Paul's death. Beyond his death, undoubtedly horrid as he had all to live for and was courageously taking a stand for right versus wrong, what is amazing is that he was indeed robbed of his death.

Yes, that is exactly what I think. I think he took a stand & got squashed.

To name one, here is a link to audio letters from the late 70's which sure must have seemed wacky and utterly unbelievable back then. He claims for example that Kissinger died in a plane crash on February 5th, 1979. With our growing awareness of consistent use of doubles and with today's hindsight and access to information technology, his revelations make one's hair stand on end:

www.peterdavidbeter.com...

Here's a thread on Kissinger:
doppels.proboards.com...

... The psychological key to all this is explained in the words: "This authority stems partly from the fact that the media, and particularly the news media, deal with public issues that are beyond the experience of most of its audience." In other words, if we don't know any better, we just believe what we are told. Still you may say, "Surely the great major media of the United States are not used for really serious distortions. It just couldn't happen here." Well, my friends, it began happening here over 80 years ago.

I know for a fact that CIA & other intell officers will sit down, write a story that is completely fabricated, & publish it in a "respectable" newspaper like the New York Times or Washington Post. People really shouldn't just accept news stories at face value. Shouldn't the lead-up to the Iraq War have taught people that? For ex, the bogus story on Niger yellow-cake uranium? Just saying...

[edit on 10-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by seaofgreen
Paul + haircut + moustache = "Faul"

Originally posted by switching yard
Interesting how the PIA folk put forward these dissolves from one face to another and call it proof. A dissolve will morph one face into the other whether they match or not, so it doesn't prove anything.

It proves that you didn't understand what you were looking at.

The face remains the same. Only the hair changes.

When you give Paul a 'Faul' haircut, he becomes 'Faul'.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by The Gorn]

Going back to a possible link between SRA & the Butcher Album...



What is that about? I don't know, but maybe something to do w/ this?

"Psychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A." by Alex Constantine

... "Psychic Dictatorship" tracks the use of cults by intelligence organizations as "cover" for arms sales, mind control and even child abuse to create assassins with mutliple personality syndrome...

www.ftrbooks.net...

[edit on 10-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by switching yard

They've made The Beatles too clean, too feminine, too carefree and too like, on Prozac.

They've made them seem gay like they could just kiss each other (no offense, gay readers but The Beatles were not).

The Beatles should be portrayed as dirty, extremely masculine, stressed, and like, in need of anger management, in your opinion?

For those of us who do not understand, can you explain what gay looks, acts, and moves like, since gay people can not assimilate themselves believably into a heterosexually dominated culture?

How do you know no member(s) of the group was gay or bisexual? Did you follow each member and catalog each intimate encounter each ever had? If any members were gay or bisexual, it would have been incredibly easy to announce it in the 1960's. Society was so much more accepting of differences back then, wasn't it?

Originally posted by The Gorn


It proves that you didn't understand what you were looking at.

The face remains the same. Only the hair changes.

When you give Paul a 'Faul' haircut, he becomes 'Faul'.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by The Gorn]

Yes, but what one also has to realise is that it's easy to compare Faul to Faul and that part of the issue is actually getting verifiably untampered pictures


Edit: I don't like the homophobic comments (well, they appear to be). Sexuality is a non-issue to me, at least, and I don't think it adds much to this discussion to say that he 'looked gay' with no supporting evidence apart from what can be perceived as an effeminate photo....but being effeminate does not equate with being gay/homosexual, and there may well be photos of each of us where we appear effeminate (or masculine, sorry Faulcon :lol. I for one have such photos and yet I'm not homosexual, curious or attracted sexually to members of my own sex...I consider this road to be a diversion.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by aorAki]

Originally posted by aorAki


Yes, but what one also has to realise is that it's easy to compare Faul to Faul and that part of the issue is actually getting verifiably untampered pictures

The Beatles were probably one of the most photographed and filmed groups or individuals ever. Scans from magazines going back to the early days are plastered all over the internet. And other than minor distortions that would be common in any mass printing process, they all look exactly alike.

The doctoring angle is an excuse to disregard why Paul remained consistent without having to actually to give any proof.


But to show you that I take your concerns seriously, both photos from this comparison were taken from a pid website that scans vintage magazines.



In the comp below, the pic on the right is the '67 pic with the '64 moptop haircut.

Not Paul?

Firstly, thanks for your reply.

Yes, it does look alluring on first glance, but tell me this: Why does the bridge of his nose widen and the eye socket position/shape change subtly, as well as his eyebrow ridge?

reply to post by aorAki


The '64 pic seems to have a deeper level of shadow which shows itself around the bridge of the nose. but that seems to me to be a very small anomaly compared to how perfectly the jawline the eyes and all other features line up. Kind of like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

As for the eyebrows, they move a lot based on your expression. Paul's move more than most. Here is a comparison showing how Paul's expressive brows remained consistent through the years.




The second image I posted above is important because when you put a mop top haircut on Paul from '67 you are immediately transported back to 1964. It's because he is the same.

From Wiki regarding George Martin...

"Martin's oboe teacher was Margaret Asher (the mother of Jane Asher, who would later have a relationship with Paul McCartney)."

Awfully small world, isn't it?

Jane's father was a psychiatrist.

One may need a psychiatrist with all these coincidences going on.

I wonder where all the '___' came from? Round about mid to late 1966 there seems to have been quite a lot going around London. Perhaps a Tavistock mass consciousness experiment?

Something on Paul's vs. Faul's drug use:

...McCartney's introduction to drugs started in Hamburg, Germany.[142] The Beatles had to play for hours, and they were often given "Prellies" (Preludin) by German customers or by Astrid Kirchherr (whose mother bought them). McCartney would usually take one, but Lennon would often take four or five.[143]...

McCartney remembered getting "very high" and giggling when The Beatles were introduced to cannabis by Bob Dylan in New York, in 1964.[144] McCartney's use of cannabis became regular, and he was quoted as saying that any future Beatles' lyrics containing the words "high", or "grass" were written specifically as a reference to cannabis—as was "Got to Get You into My Life".[145]... Help! director Dick Lester said that he overheard "two beautiful women" trying to cajole McCartney into taking heroin, but he refused.[147]...

McCartney was introduced to coc aine by Robert Fraser, and it was available during the recording of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.[149][150] He admitted that he used the drug multiple times for about a year but stopped because of the unpleasant come down.[151]

In 1967, McCartney said everybody sat around and took '___', although McCartney had first taken it with Tara Browne, in 1966.[154][155][156] He took his second "acid trip" with Lennon on 21 March 1967 after a studio session.[157] McCartney was the first British pop star to openly admit using '___', in an interview in the now-defunct "Queen" magazine.[158] His admission was followed by a TV interview in the UK on Independent Television News on 19 June 1967, when McCartney was asked about his admission of '___' use, he said:

“I was asked a question by a newspaper, and the decision was whether to tell a lie or tell him the truth. I decided to tell him the truth ... but I really didn't want to say anything, you know, because if I had my way I wouldn't have told anyone. I'm not trying to spread the word about this. But the man from the newspaper is the man from the mass medium. I'll keep it a personal thing if he does too, you know ... if he keeps it quiet. But he wanted to spread it so it's his responsibility, you know, for spreading it, not mine.

en.wikipedia.org...

I would like to know when that acid trip w/ Tara Brown was in 1966... But I find it interesting that Paul usually took only one prelly, smoked pot, & said no to heroine, while Faul did coc aine & '___'.

Originally posted by switching yard
One may need a psychiatrist with all these coincidences going on.

Right... "coincidences." lol

I wonder where all the '___' came from? Round about mid to late 1966 there seems to have been quite a lot going around London. Perhaps a Tavistock mass consciousness experiment?

Don't you think it could be connected to MKULTRA & mind control - or whatever the British version of MKULTRA was?

[edit on 10-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by aorAki

There you go Wally. I find it quite curious. Best to listen to it without watching, and then watch and listen.

backmasking clues, it seems to me, are more likely to have been implanted by spirits than by living persons.

if paul is dead it stands to reason that his influence would have produced many clues, unwittingly to the people who layed the clues down through their crafting (covers, vocals, etc).

of course you need to be a little familiar with the attempts at communicating with the dead to know their (apparent) MO.

but adding to that that some beatles were into the occult (john and faul, to start with), their involvement can only have charged the spirits and made their influence stronger.


i've been reading this thread since yesterday and i got to commend faulcon on her outstanding job, as well as on her dealing with the disrupters posturing as the voice of reason.

indeed the material about the illuminati, mindcontrol, secret services, doppelgangers, satanic ritual abuse is all very relevant.
if you don't have this background, you come up with the clueless questions that I have read along the thread.

i'm not rating faulcon's exposé as "conclusive" though, just as very impressive and professionally done. Seriously I'm sure faulcon could make full conferences on this topic and be great at it.

[edited for spelling, typos, and faulcon's gender]

[edit on 11-9-2009 by quintal]

I wonder, is Faulcon some kind of PID bot?

Originally posted by quintal

...backmasking clues, it seems to me, are more likely to have been implanted by spirits than by living persons.

Assuming that aorAki's linked video is an accurate reverse playback of these songs, then it is in all likelihood a form of reverse speech which many scientists now agree is a natural form of speech used by children during their first few months of utterances, which we don't understand until they reverse it into what we call forward. Just as our brain turns our sight upside down, we apparently do something similar for speech with our mind reversing natural language. There is much evidence pointing to this type of occurrence, including reversing speech of infants, making them comprehensible at the youngest of ages:

www.reversespeech.com...

It thus stands to reason that Faul may be having "issues with his conscience" or, for lack of a better term, his subconscious mind may be speaking to us in reverse at the same time as he is singing.


While many voluntary visual and lyrical clues may be found in the early after PID era, can we assume that at least some of the backmasking clues were not provided consciously but unconsciously, making them altogether more convincing regarding the authenticity of their message and potential truthfulness?

I've been reading this thread since yesterday and i got to commend faulcon on his outstanding job, as well as on his dealing with the disrupter posturing as the voice of reason.

Regarding PID thread disrupters, were you referring to "diabolo1" (devil 1 in Italian) with evident satanist connotations in his pen name, or "The Gorn" whose avatar shows a somewhat reptilian identification?


It is revealing that said characters would be present in the PIA front to systematically contest and attempt to disrupt the PID debate. This thread would instead greatly benefit from any first hand knowledge from satanic group members such as those possibly involved in Paul's demise, and maybe as well as from entities knowledgeable of saurian or reptilian agendas including mind control of the human race?

However, it seems that they are not up to the task of being constructive contributors to this PID thread, given that they fail to reply with valid counterarguments to the key issues underlying our PID revelations, namely allegations of links to Satanism, Tavistock, the Intelligence Community, Mind Control or the Mob.

It would prove their good faith if the PIA camp would take the trouble to respectfully investigate these matters and participate in the PID inquiry rather than making lazy disruptive postings. It would also help advance the PID / PIA investigation if they posted valid, intelligent and plausible arguments rather than a rumbling drone of self-content empty affirmations that PIA.

Tavistock - Mind control in motion.



www.youtube.com... - "Red Ice" on mind-control/Tavistock/Hitlers "doubles."


www.amazon.co.uk...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252674163&sr=8-1 Hugh Thomas, "Doppelgangers"



[edit on 11-9-2009 by Uncle Benny]

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
Tavistock - Mind control in motion.

Uncle Benny,

Thanks for that link to Kurt Lewin's involvement. I have personal reason to believe that Dr. Lewin did not die in 1957 having met him in a clinical context almost a decade later, but this is outside the issue. What is more relevant to others at ATS is the following from Wikipedia:

When Eric Trist and A T M Wilson wrote to Lewin proposing a journal in partnership with their newly founded Tavistock Institute and his group at MIT, Lewin agreed. The Tavistock journal, Human Relations, was founded with two early papers by Lewin entitled "Frontiers in Group Dynamics".

Suffice it to say that MIT's principle source of funding is the Pentagon and the Defense industry. The Tavistock journal and Dr. Lewin's purported demise coincide with the date of the founding of the Tavistock Institute (dissociated from the Tavistock Clinic and dedicated to Mind Control). There is reason to consider whether Lewin didn't go "underground" to further experimental Mind Control testing and experimentation within the auspices of the Tavistock Institute. In this case I would find reason to start a KIA (Kurt is alive) movement.

Tavistock is "Supra-governmental" as well as "Above Politics", implying not that they have no duties towards politics or governments, but that it is likely that both politicians and governments have a duty to the same powerful groups or individuals who control Tavistock and the world's population by a matrix of psycho-social mechanisms and prefabricated subliminal realities. :eek:


On a more humorous note, to dispel the monotony such a long thread might have and further stimulate the controversy, I offer Gorn and his like-minded friends a well-suited PID video from Youtube:

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
www.youtube.com... - "Red Ice" on mind-control/Tavistock/Hitlers "doubles."

Uncle Benny,

I am brought to quote you again as your post was very instructive. The PID movement is largely concerned with Tavistock having manipulated a group from Liverpool called The Beatles.

Your second video which I quote states in its second part (you must click on the next Youtube link to hear this) that Hitler was trained by the British between February and November 1912 and that afterwards he lived in Liverpool between November 1912 and May 1913. Listen to 1:40 to 2:00 here:
www.youtube.com...

History shows that his brother's home in Liverpool was, just like the Tavistock Clinic, was reportedly bombed by V1 or V2 missiles from Germany, destroying any potential evidence surrounding this period. Wernher von Braun sure came through in the incredible task of surgically targeting inter-continental (OK, cross-channel) strikes in a way we would be hard pressed to do with today's technology.

Was a group from Liverpool used, tongue in cheek in pure aristocratic British style, to blast the underpinnings of the USA just like a chap who hid from the Austrian army in Liverpool during WWI destroyed the German spirit and nation? It is a coincidence worth contemplating, and which could make sense in the light of British "black humor".

Heck, it's almost as funny as Queen Victoria getting pregnant from her own father! Give us the renowned Victorian prudery as a control mechanism to keep her in line, making the incestuous birth of the "Royals" as politically incorrect as ever in human history. (See vids for more info)

Originally posted by Getsmart
I offer Gorn and his like-minded friends a well-suited PID video from Youtube:

I should have expected this.

He's a bloody reptilian now!

The 'pidders' have finally lost the plot completely!