Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

is this legit? if so then we have been lied and foold at in many many years and that means paul or what ever he is should loose hes Sir title and slamed in jail ......


geez this is shocking news

Yes, this is legit. And yes, it's shocking & quite sad.

"Sir Paul" was knighted for his service to the Queen. John Lennon returned his MBE, which could be construed as a statement that he was not going to serve the Illuminati agenda.

I live in Liverpool and occasionally go to the Cavern (It's sometimes harsh because some American tourists don't know it isn't the original and freak when they find out lol) There are a ton of stories people in there talk about regarding Faul & Paul. There's a phonebox in there and in it people write all sign ups and stuff. One says "PAUL IZ DEAD!! FAUL LIVEZ!!"

Maybe after the real Paul died, the hype was SO big, the income was too big to lose, they replaced him.

I think Derren Brown knows Paul was replaced. Watch this video. He says, "I'm sure this wouldn't have worked if I'd been a very famous pop-star" (or something to that effect).

Derren Brown - Person Swap
www.56.com...

Excellent new PID article:

"WAS PAUL MCCARTNEY REPLACED IN 1966? *WORLD UPDATE"
www.indianinthemachine.com...

Dear world,
For decades people have said "Paul is dead" referring to Paul McCartney of the Beatles, a Tavistock Institute band. It is alleged that Paul McCartney died in an auto accident in 1966 which was reported by the media...at least a few, but the reality is that he was probably murdered. After 1966 it has been noted that Paul had changed, including his height, face, ears, voice, and mannerisms.

See for yourself, does the following information assist you to consider the possibilitity that Paul McCartney replaced by a double (perhaps someone from a Beatles look-a-like contest), or even a human clone? Is it possible that the world couldn't see what was really in front of them, was in fact an entirely different person, an entirely different soul scripted and progammed by some evil sorta instution that manipulates the public from behind the scenes and apparently is quite successful! Earthlings, you have served your evil controllers just as they script you to do so. Is it possible that millions of screaming Beatles fans were already too dumbed down and mind-controlled to notice that their very heroes could change before their eyes into a totally different human being, and were in fact not who they said they were, and this lie would be blessed by many in the know, around them... and they would receive accolades and honours for their lie against humanity including being knighted by the dark forces?

See for your own eyes and process this information through your mind and then through your heart, and then as you repeat this process....you will get to the point where you can "feel" the Truth based on the information you have absorbed.

There already appears to be ample evidence that suggests the Beatles didn't even write some of the music accredited to them, so really anything is possible.

Some people might scoff at me and often do, because I am willing to consider, what they may not be willing to consider, and so they make attempts to pull me down to their level and I say "beleiving in illusions does not bring freedom"...and, "celebrate the Truth bringers, who take the time, make the effort, to bring the gift of Truth to the masses...after all the Truth WILL set us free". You can feel free more everyday...enjoy this read and may all mysteries of life unfold in the Light before your eyes...

-Dieter Braun (Indian in the machine)
www.indianinthemachine.com

He goes onto to do facial comps, height comps, ears comps, etc.

Its worth bearing in mind a few less known facts from human anatomy that people often are unaware of:

1 - Your ears get larger as you age and can change shape as a result.

2 - Features can change a helluva lot depending on aging, facial expression and weight gain.

3 - The angle that a photo is taken at can vastly change it in relation to other ones taken of the same person. (as any artist who deals with exact likenesses and they'll know all about this one!)

4 - Your eyeballs are the same size when you born as you are when your 50, 90 or older...you eyes stay the same size from birth and your face changes and grows around them and your other features. This is why babies have what we define as 'cute' eyes.

to add on top of this:

1 - Camera focal length and lens size can make a helluva differnce to aphoto.

2 - Differnt cameras can give quite differnt results

3 - Analog photos are not perfect tranfers of 'life'.

4 - Media outlets have never been adverse to squashing or stretching a photo to fit in with a page layout.


In the same way as a good dcotor can see the antotomical structure beneath your skin as you move, a good artist can see your bone and muscle structure. Its an essential skill for artists that deal in organic subjects. As an artist when Ilook at old and young paul I see a natrual progression of a guy who's lived life to the full, taken a lot of hard drugs and who's bone structure matches perfectly.

The whole 'paul is dead' is a heck of story and very compelling to read. (I love reading stuff on it, its became the ultimate urban myth.) That doesn't however make it true, especially when I see photos for different angles with different facial expressions and weight gain being touted as 'proof'.

But hey never let the facts get in the way of a good story. The sheer ammount of work thats went in on this whole fiction over decades means it could actually now be considered a collective work of art in its own right.


Wayne...

There are a lot of differences between Paul in August 1966 & Dec. 1966. Obviously, "age" can't account for them. Also, all the pictures that have been posted by me are from virtually the same angle, so that's not a good explanation, either.

I really wish this were an "urban myth," but it's not. Someone was killed & replaced, which is a tragedy. We've also been deprived of a very talented musician & gotten less than excellent songs in return. Sorry, but I don't have a high regard for Faul's work. He has trashed Paul's legacy, imo.

Paul's attached ears:


Faul's unattached ears:

We get old. That's what happens. Some things you can fake with plastic surgery, but others (such as the distance between your pupils) have to stay the same. And changing the ratios of distance between the eyes, the nose the mouth, and so on, would be practically impossible.

Here's a very young Paul McCartney, and a very old one. Nothing tricky has been done with the photos, other than adjusting the contrast, the tilt of the head, and removing some background junk to focus on the face and head.

Look past the sagging, fatty skin and see how when the eyes line up, and all the major parts of the skull still line up after all this time. Unless Paul was replaced by an identical twin (and even then a twin wouldn't even line up as well), then the plastic surgeon was an unheralded genius:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/c115649a7f646ced.gif[/atsimg]

So goes the way of all flesh.

[edit on 17-6-2009 by Nohup]

That is not the same angle..or even close. one is taken fro afar steeper angle than the other. Ears as I've explained change with age as they continue to grow. If you don't belive me do a google image search for th worlds oldest men. You'll see some HUGE ears.

As the ear grows, so does the lobe..and the weight can indeed pull it away from the head. When young my fathers ears were attached as in the young paul photo...now hes in his late 60's they look detatched as in the 2nd image. Now unless someone secretly replaced my dad one day when I wasn't looking that proves that the ear can change.

Wayne...

reply to post by Nohup


Obviously the same person. I think alot of the changes can be attibuted to the types of drugs he may or may not have been at the time. Different drugs do different things to the human body. Some de-hydrate some make a person retain water.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9e2b1e4bac1d.gif[/atsimg]


This animated GIF shows what most people already knew....Its the same man!


Paul is Dead - BUSTED: Video Anatomical Explanation


Here's a video I recorded that outlines exactly why it is the same man.... Not that it ever needed to be, but it sort of busts the whole theory out of the water.

So even if your a very big beliver in the whole theory, the one undoubtable thing that this shows without a shadow of a doubt, is that between the dates of these two pictures Paul McCartney did not die and was not 'replaced'. He is the same man in both photos.

If thats the case the the whole 'Paul is Dead' theory falls down like the walls of Jerico. But hey its still a great 'story' and would make one helluva sci fi film. No doubt hardened belivers will stil find a reason why this video proves nothing...but lets have a reality check now please.

Wayne...

This would have been Paul's 67th birthday today.

As I mentioned before, photo tampering plays a big part in maintaining the illusion that Faul is Paul. For ex:





I think they over did Faul's eyebrows. He looks more like a caricature of Paul than anything.




[edit on 18-6-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

I'm sorry but you really are grasping at straws here...the photos used were supplied by you, presumbly as 'proof'.

Wrap it up any way you like, but it's not as easy to pass off a fraud such as the one you try to perpetuate as it once was. So try to post as many sperate posts as you can to push it nice and far back in the thread eh

If you can't come back with hard evidence of my conclusions being wrong. (Which you can't without bringing down the whole field of human anatomy), then its safe to say that you have NO case whatsoever other than a will to belive.

You will find that the human face is capable of many extreme expressions...in fact look up a comedian call 'phil cool' on youtube to see exactly how far it CAN be pushed.


Wayne...

[edit on 18/6/2009 by the secret web]

[edit on 18/6/2009 by the secret web]

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob




It's the same person.

We've had so many pages of you just posting random pictures of different angles, contrasts ages and other stuff.

It's the SAME person..... let it go mate.


It was a rumour that was started and they played along....they liked drugs....it was the 60's....it was fun.



Paul is the same Paul that he's always been..

Get over it

It's clearly not the same person, but I'm not going to argue w/ people about it. I've been doing this long enough to know that some will be able to see it & some won't. Some people have been blinded by their belief systems, & that's just the way it is.

But anyway, today would have been Paul's 67th birthday, so here is one of my fave songs by Paul.




[edit on 18-6-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

As I recall, the voice analysis of each of the Beatle from early days and later conclusively proved that only Paul's voice did not match. IE Paul as not the same person. Linda and "Paul" where married after 65 I believe. This might also help explain John's death as he as more of a free thinker, at some point he most likely would spill the beans.

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob

 

It's the same person.

We've had so many pages of you just posting random pictures of different angles, contrasts ages and other stuff.

It's the SAME person..... let it go mate.


It was a rumour that was started and they played along....they liked drugs....it was the 60's....it was fun.



Paul is the same Paul that he's always been..

Get over it

Yes, I tend towards this.

I'd like to be a 'believer', but so far I have found/seen no hard evidence.
It's an interesting thought exercise at the moment.

Convince me!

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
It's clearly not the same person, but I'm not going to argue w/ people about it. I've been doing this long enough to know that some will be able to see it & some won't.

Ah so yu are not open to reason in any way shape or form then. Its nice to know that you are prepared to ignore anything that doesn't fit in with what you want to belive.

It si my JOB to be able to 'see' differences that others do not... its my JOB to look for the minute forms and changes in inclination and foibles in a face or body. It is not my job to go along with an obvious crock of dooo doo. What may I ask qualifies you to be able to see that which other cannot? Is it any cooindence that only 'belivers' see it?



I'm inclined to agree that the beatles went along with it probably for a 'laugh'. Lets not forget these guys were so damn famous at the time they couldn't go where they wanted and had became virtually prisoners of their own fame.

Lock anyone away amongst the same people for most of their working day long enough with no downtime on their own and yeah they are liable to make some crazy decision and do all sorts of ill advised stuff 'for a laugh'.

I think they relalised it'd gotten out of hand and started to panic.

Its also clear that you are not hear to seek the truth, but rather stay in a blissful bubble of fantasy that you wish to belive in.

Wayne...