Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

In the same video...

www.youtube.com...

from about 5:55 to 6:09

they're asked if all their press conferences are like this with so many reporters and "would be" reporters to which John replies...

"you can't always tell the would be's from the real thing."

I find it kind of interesting that a reporter thinks some of the reporters are not real reporters and John agrees that you can't always tell who is real and not real.

Kind of interesting in view of this thread's topic. Also in this interview as well as the L.A. press conference interview, "Paul" has his hand up to his face quite a lot of the time like maybe he is self-conscious about his looks.

If the replacement happened with a couple more tour dates to go, that would actually be an ideal time to make the switch because the public and the press would be totally conditioned to expect nothing wrong.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by switching yard]

That's definitely Paul in the LA interview.

reply to post by switching yard

Originally posted by switching yard
In the same video...

www.youtube.com...

from about 5:55 to 6:09

they're asked if all their press conferences are like this with so many reporters and "would be" reporters to which John replies...

"you can't always tell the would be's from the real thing."

I find it kind of interesting that a reporter thinks some of the reporters are not real reporters and John agrees that you can't always tell who is real and not real.

We spend our days trying to create order from chaos. How we paint the chaos often depends on our preconceived notions. I think that is what John is saying. It goes back to SFF and nothing is real. John seems very disillusioned with the world.

Wow. I just read back a little and realize that you guys are serious. You really looked at a couple of pictures and decided it is proof of a switcharoo. I am very curious now what is the average age of those who think this is true?

Originally posted by space cadet
Wow. I just read back a little and realize that you guys are serious. You really looked at a couple of pictures and decided it is proof of a switcharoo. I am very curious now what is the average age of those who think this is true?

Some are young but I have found most are in their 40's and 50's.

Btw, many of us have been "looking at pictures" for over 5 years. Having a quick look and making an assumption is not enough to judge whether or not what we say is true.

Originally posted by SednaSon
That's definitely Paul in the LA interview.

I wouldn't say it was "definitely" Paul in LA. I don't think it was. I think switching yard has made some good points about the "wiggy" hair & how he had his hand covering his face a lot.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by space cadet
Wow. I just read back a little and realize that you guys are serious. You really looked at a couple of pictures and decided it is proof of a switcharoo. I am very curious now what is the average age of those who think this is true?

Trust me, we didn't look at a "couple of pictures" and decide it's true. I spent about 2 days analyzing photos & videos before I could see it. I've spent the last year researching PID in depth. Some other people on this thread have spent a lot longer.

It's none of your business how old people are, but some of us are highly educated professionals.

reply to post by SednaSon


But it is absurd. Paul is alive and well, very much in the public and still putting out good music.

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by SednaSon

 

But it is absurd. Paul is alive and well, very much in the public and still putting out good music.

Except the faces don't match - something that has been proven by forensic science. Go figure.

Originally posted by switching yard
I'm shocked and saddened by this thread because I think PID is true.

I was devastated when I found out. That is one reason I'm so motivated to get the truth out - it's just horrible what happened to the *real* Paul.

I've also wondered if the story is correct about the Tokyo police finding that the fingerprints of "Paul" do not match those on file for Paul.

And also the paternity test in which Bettina Krischbin claimed "Paul" had sent a body double to give blood back in 1983.

I know it's a stretch that they found a double, but finding and training a double is part of the skill set of the intelligence community.

Exactly. I'm not sure where they find their talent. The Gen. Montgomery double was an actor someone saw a picture of & thought looked like Monty. With a fake finger & a little bit of training, no one could tell the difference. I can't even tell the difference, even though I know one is a double. Faul isn't as good as a double, since people could tell there was something wrong. Obviously, people noticed, or else there would never have been a PID "rumor" in the first place.

Just a couple of weeks ago, "Paul" reached out to Mojo magazine and made a point to say that there's nothing to the PID rumors. Why is he nervous about it?

lol - maybe *someone* is feeling the heat?

Seeing this has further convinced me that there are dark forces intent upon destroying the PID theories.

Quite right. At this point, not too many people are aware that doubles are used. I'm sure some people don't want the cat out of the bag on this one... Like you mentioned, there are so many other tangential issues, such as Illuminati, mind control, SRA, COINTELPRO, etc.

reply to post by space cadet


I am 60, and just found this thread. It makes sense out of a whole lot of things that didn’t fit before, things that just weren't right.
When the PID thing first hit, I was 19. I believed that Life magazine told the truth, so I believed that he was alive. I never really thought about it until recently. Now, knowing what I know about the Illuminati and mind manipulation, MK-Ultra, CIA, etc., I know better. The story of Laurel Canyon is a must read.
When I was a teenager I had pictures of the young Paul on my bedroom walls. But after about 1966 I was never a big Paul fan again. He wasn’t “cute” any more. His solo songs weren’t anything like his early songs. Linda Eastman was OK, I didn’t really dislike her, but she didn’t have near the class and refinement that Jane Asher had. I can’t believe the same guy would pick the two of them. In his autobiography he doesn't really explain why he and Jane broke up.
He used to be cheeky, now he’s just kind of grumpy and arrogant. Look at John, he went from mischievous and funny to a sort of black humor. That’s one person growing up. Paul just seems different. He doesn't have the depth he once had.
And that's besides all the evidence of height, hair parting, speaking Italian, right-handedness, silly ears. The video of the Liverpool pub where the older lady greets him as "Bill" is impressive.

By the way, this site says Svali is alive and safe in an environment without internet access:

svalispeaks.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by Seekr
I am 60, and just found this thread. It makes sense out of a whole lot of things that didn’t fit before, things that just weren't right.

It does, doesn't it? I think a lot of people sense something isn't quite right, & that's why PID has never really gone away. There was something niggling at the back of people's minds.

When the PID thing first hit, I was 19. I believed that Life magazine told the truth, so I believed that he was alive.

Yeah, it seems people were more trusting of main-stream media back then.

When I was a teenager I had pictures of the young Paul on my bedroom walls. But after about 1966 I was never a big Paul fan again. He wasn’t “cute” any more.

Exactly. I think this is maybe something the male representatives of the species aren't picking up on Paul went from (IMO) the best-looking guy ever to not cute at all - in 4 months. lol

His solo songs weren’t anything like his early songs.

IMO, Paul was a genius. I love all of his songs. I can barely stand to listen to Faul's songs. Some are ok, some just get on my nerves.

He used to be cheeky, now he’s just kind of grumpy and arrogant.

Another excellent point. Paul was cheeky, but in a fun way, & was seemingly always polite.

Paul just seems different. He doesn't have the depth he once had.

Paul & John were starting to talk out against the Vietnam War in 1966 (in Memphis interview, for ex). It could also have been a factor in the replacement decision. But those guys were very smart, very popular, & potential threats to TPTB.

By the way, this site says Svali is alive and safe in an environment without internet access:

svalispeaks.wordpress.com...

Thanks. I'm glad to hear that.

Originally posted by Seekr
When I was a teenager I had pictures of the young Paul on my bedroom walls. But after about 1966 I was never a big Paul fan again. He wasn’t “cute” any more.

How odd, considering that he looked exactly the same.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Except the faces don't match - something that has been proven by forensic science. Go figure.

If it had been "proven by forensic science" in Wired magazine, why is the very same publication still saying it is Paul McCartney?

From next month's issue of Wired:

At the end of the video presentation the two surviving band members, Ringo Starr, 69, and Paul McCartney, 67, take the stage for a surprise appearance.

www.wired.co.uk...

"Proof", huh?

Not according to the very same publication that published the forensic analysis, because they are still calling him the "surviving" Beatle, Paul McCartney.

If the Italian scientists didn't claim "proof" of anything, and if the very same magazine which published their investigation are still insisting Paul McCartney is alive, why should you or anyone else claim "proof" of anything?

"Go figure".




[edit on 15-9-2009 by Dakudo]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by SednaSon

 

But it is absurd. Paul is alive and well, very much in the public and still putting out good music.

Except the faces don't match - something that has been proven by forensic science.

So you keep saying; only it's not true:

In 2009, the Italian affiliate of Wired magazine published an article by Italians Francesco Gavazzeni (IT analyst) and Gabriella Carlesi (medico-legal)[clarification needed] in which they compared McCartney’s facial attributes (including skull and jaw shape) in photographs taken before and after his alleged demise, and concluded that it was possible that the photographs were not of the same person. They noted however, that they had not had direct access to McCartney, and that they were less certain of their conclusion than might have been the case had they been dealing with a corpse, where a more rigorous analysis would have been possible.

The key words would seem to be "it was possible that the photographs were not of the same person", however "it was possible that the photographs were of the same person" is an equally valid interpretation. In other words, they proved diddly-squat.

Originally posted by switching yard
The two interviews posted above by Uncle Benny seem to me to be someone trying to look and sound like Paul compared to the Memphis interview of the real Paul McCartney.

I can easily hear a difference in their voices. Sounds like the fake is trying to mimic a Liverpool accent. Mr. Fake also has trouble making a coherent point as if he is just rambling on about nothing. Faker has strange looking wig hair and looks like he is uncomfortable being on camera.

The real Paul is genuine.

I don't know how anyone could fail to see the differences in those two different guys in those particular interviews.

You`ve hit the nail on the head switching yard and for me what shows beyond doubt that Paul was replaced is the video footage -
Old interviews from the early to mid-1960`s, also footage of the group playing together.

Photos can be altered, faked, photo-shopped etc but you can`t hide the essence, mannerism and spirit of a human being - Paul was just being himself, Bill was just being Paul.

Many say he changed because of drugs etc but the entire group dynamic changed, his relationship with John Lennon as you so well pointed out before in the "Let it Be" clips.

I'm shocked and saddened by this thread because I think PID is true.

We all went through the same thing my friend.

Originally posted by Seekr
reply to post by space cadet

 

I am 60, and just found this thread. It makes sense out of a whole lot of things that didn’t fit before, things that just weren't right.
When the PID thing first hit, I was 19. I believed that Life magazine told the truth, so I believed that he was alive. I never really thought about it until recently. Now, knowing what I know about the Illuminati and mind manipulation, MK-Ultra, CIA, etc., I know better. The story of Laurel Canyon is a must read....

Thank you for your contribution Seekr!

You`d be surprised how many people of your own generation have said similar things after reading threads like this on other sites.

Originally posted by seaofgreen


So you keep saying; only it's not true:

In 2009, the Italian affiliate of Wired magazine published an article by Italians Francesco Gavazzeni (IT analyst) and Gabriella Carlesi (medico-legal)[clarification needed] in which they compared McCartney’s facial attributes (including skull and jaw shape) in photographs taken before and after his alleged demise, and concluded that it was possible that the photographs were not of the same person. They noted however, that they had not had direct access to McCartney, and that they were less certain of their conclusion than might have been the case had they been dealing with a corpse, where a more rigorous analysis would have been possible.

The key words would seem to be "it was possible that the photographs were not of the same person", however "it was possible that the photographs were of the same person" is an equally valid interpretation. In other words, they proved diddly-squat.

Indeed. Faulcon is just exposing the fact that she doesn't really understand what "proof" really is.

For example, in a court of law, proof can be defined as:

Confirmation of a fact by evidence. In a court trial proof is what the trier of the fact (jury or judge without a jury) needs to become satisfied the evidence shows "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal prosecutions.

You, myself and others have pointed out on numerous occasions, the Itallian scientists expressed the view that their findings only raised doubts and they were not certain the photos showed two different men.

Therefore, such "evidence" does not fit the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criteria.

It can be clearly seen, therefore, by any intelligent person that Faulcon's claim that the Wired article is "proof" is nonsensical, erroneous and downright misleading.

Originally posted by seaofgreen

How odd, considering that he looked exactly the same.

Seaofgreen, you've got to be a guy!


First, I plead guilty to being odd. After all, I’m on this board, right?

Being cute is more than bone structure. It’s personality and attitude. And charisma. The Beatles were cheeky and totally unself-conscious. They were irreverent without being rude or impolite, as Faulcon says. Being fun and charming was part of being cute. You may think he looked the same, but my 16-year-old self didn’t think he looked the same.

Originally posted by Seekr
Seaofgreen, you've got to be a guy!

Yes, so how could he claim to know what a woman finds attractive?

I'm confused about how people could think these guys look "exactly the same":



I suppose this is another one of those "misleading" photo comps - just b/c they don't look the same - lol. People can look at "The Night Before" & "Strawberry Fields Forever" videos & compare for themselves.


[edit on 15-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]