Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by Dakudo

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

And she proves it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

This is clearly the same person.



A little background on the Wired article Faulcon continues to say proves Paul was replaced.

It's a farce.

maccafunhouse.proboards.com...

reply to post by Seekr


The Beatles you know of through the media is not real. The lovable 'mop-tops' was not real. Photos were air-brushed to clean up blemishes and lines on their faces, to make them look younger and 'cuter'. That is still commonly done today in 'show business', it's part of the process of selling a product.

The real Beatles were the ones you see after 1967, when they had stopped touring, and after Brian Epstein died, so they no longer hid behind their media image, and more of the real personalities of the individual members of the band started coming through.

Part of Epsteins job was to control the Beatles public image. From the beginning he wanted to portray them as lovable cute kids. After he died, with no one controlling their public image they stopped wearing the matching suits and stuff and took control of their own image. It was Epstein who put them in suits, they would have rather wore jeans and leather like they had before he came along.

As for their personalities, well for one their manager had died, and without him they were lost. The there was the bigger than Jesus comment from John that was misinterpreted that tore a huge hole in the Beatles state of mind. Basically they were forced to grow up and take stock of their lives. Of course they changed.

You PID guys seem to have a very shallow knowledge of the Beatles.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Wally Hope]

Bills tongue-in-cheek responses on the Ellen Show -


1.14 Ellen - "You`re so loved and have such an influence on all of us" (watch Fauls expression), what`s it like to be you??"

1.23 Faul - "Weird man... you know what it`s actually great but it has its moments when you suddenly realise you know, oh my God, I`m that famous guy" (speaks of Paul in the third person).

1.40 Ellen - jokes back, "well that`s good because you have no choice, you`re kind of stuck in being this huge icon!"

1.46 - Watch Bills non-verbal response, priceless!


4.13 Karens question - "Is it true you wear fake nails when you perform?"

4.20 Bill - "You have to go and tell everyone don`t you... on nationwide telly" - Another great piece of tongue-in-cheek banter from Bill on the man he replaced!



[edit on 15-9-2009 by Uncle Benny]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
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]

Whilst you're at it, don't forget to watch the Fool on the Hill video as well.

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
Bills tongue-in-cheek responses on the Ellen Show -

4.13 Karens question - "Is it true you wear fake nails when you perform?"

So, he wears a fake nail. That is kind of weird, isn't it? I had to keep all of my nails really short when I was playing bass a lot.

reply to post by Uncle Benny


Not trying to read in too much on the video. My nephew recently joined a well known band( I'll not mention the name to promote both his and my annonimity). He's been on a few tours and he says it's unreal the way people fawn over you. In his mind, he's the same guy he's always been, but the fans seem to make him into this 'rock star' that he doesn't think he is. I would imagine that that sort of thing would be hard to get used to no matter how old you are or how ever long people have idolized you.

Originally posted by Wally Hope

You PID guys seem to have a very shallow knowledge of the Beatles.

I agree. To state that 'Faul' wasn't "cute" is a PERSONAL opinion - nothing more. And as such, it is certainly no evidence whatsoever for PID.

MANY girls thought he was cute after PID.

Paul's wedding:

These girls obviously still thought he was cute!



This girl is crying because 'cute' Paul isn't single any more...



More girls upset that the really 'cute' Paul can never be there's now....



Listen to all the screaming girls at 1.35.

www.youtube.com...

Faulcon may pretend to speak for every other female Beatles fan when she says 'Faul' in the late 60's wasn't "cute".

But, to the intelligent and rational reader, in reality, she doesn't represent any other female apart from herself!

Video evidence proves girls still found him "cute" in 1969.

End of story!


[edit on 15-9-2009 by Dakudo]

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Dakudo]

Originally posted by darkelf
He's been on a few tours and he says it's unreal the way people fawn over you. In his mind, he's the same guy he's always been, but the fans seem to make him into this 'rock star' that he doesn't think he is.

See how TPTB could use that influence to manipulate people?

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
So, he wears a fake nail. That is kind of weird, isn't it? I had to keep all of my nails really short when I was playing bass a lot.

Lol Faulcon, nothing is ever straight forward with Bill.

Originally posted by darkelf
Not trying to read in too much on the video. My nephew recently joined a well known band( I'll not mention the name to promote both his and my annonimity). He's been on a few tours and he says it's unreal the way people fawn over you. In his mind, he's the same guy he's always been, but the fans seem to make him into this 'rock star' that he doesn't think he is. I would imagine that that sort of thing would be hard to get used to no matter how old you are or how ever long people have idolized you.

That`s a fair point darkelf, sometimes people speak about themselves in the third person - Bill however has made a habit of it.

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
So, he wears a fake nail. That is kind of weird, isn't it? I had to keep all of my nails really short when I was playing bass a lot.

Lol Faulcon, nothing is ever straight forward with Bill.

Of course it's not straightforward when pidders have distorted it.

True to form as ever, Faulcon erases the facts that don't suit her story, in this case that that the nail is for playing Blackbird on a 6-string, and she tries to twist it into something suspicious sounding by referring to bass playing instead.

reply to post by space cadet


'Wow,' I'm 49 — does that work for you?

i'm impressed by Pidders' responses in this thread. Paul was replaced. i miss Paul. he was great. Faul? not so.

i've looked at far, far more than a 'couple of pictures,' and am totally convinced the world lost the best when Paul McCartney was replaced.

Originally posted by Floh
Paul was replaced. i miss Paul. he was great.

Me too. He was the BEST :-)

Watching those videos Benny posted, it struck me how odd Faul looks w/ dark hair. It doesn't really suit him. Paul had black hair (according to him). It looked great on him.

And in response to the person who was saying the teeth looked the same. I got this image from Spycraft by Robert Wallace and H. Keith Melton:



It's possible to make teeth look like someone else's. Sorry it's not a great scan, but it's a big, unwieldy book & that was the best I could get it. These teeth were done by OTS.

OTS = Office of Technical Service

[edit on 15-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

[edit on 15-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by seaofgreen
True to form as ever, Faulcon erases the facts that don't suit her story, in this case that that the nail is for playing Blackbird on a 6-string, and she tries to twist it into something suspicious sounding by referring to bass playing instead.

Considering the topic of discussion on this thread deals with the permanent replacement of an influential 60`s pop star, I find your above statement seaofgreen amusing to say the least. The words... "grasping at straws" come to mind.

I have read most if not all of this thread, watched most if not all of the credible videos surrounding this topic and I have honestly come to the personal conclusion that J Paul McCartney did in fact die in 1966.

Overlay pictures all you like, compare video footage, voice... anyone with any intuition can do a simple search "paul mccartney 1966" then do a "paul mcartney "1970" and you can clearly see that it is NOT the same person. I am also a musician (i play the acoustic 6 + 12 strings ) and he also sounds different, in a variety of ways.

The album covers, the backward messages, the outright lyrics in songs, the obvious difference in appearance, the difference in sound, the fact the band stopped playing live after 1966...

I do not care to convince anybody or anything... but wow... I love the paul from 66 and before...it is a significant difference to me.

Great research on everybody's part... again, I do not know the circumstances, but this is certainly 2 different men.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by darkelf
He's been on a few tours and he says it's unreal the way people fawn over you. In his mind, he's the same guy he's always been, but the fans seem to make him into this 'rock star' that he doesn't think he is.

See how TPTB could use that influence to manipulate people?

Oh, no doubt. TPTB have their nasty little hands in more than most people are willing to see. The whole social experiment of the sixties was designed to put us where we are today. They started with the young people who today are in their 50s and 60s.

I've never said that the PID conspiracy is a hoax, only that I'm not convinced. Both sides make excellent arguments.

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?

Well, you might like to look back a lot and then come back with your comment about looking at a couple of pictures....it's way more than that, and not just pictures, but if that's what you want to believe to keep the world from falling in around you, that's fine.


I, however, disagree.

I am 39 (in a week) and well-versed in the Scientific method and an adept at observation of minutiae being a micropaleontology technician (as well as wearing other, associated 'hats'). This is another exercise in pattern recognition, for me, and I can notice discrepancies.

yeah... I can't stress enough. I am a musician, and I have just the other day unearthed this topic. Before it I had never heard of this however I always felt the beatles 'went off' after 1966. Now I believe I know why. And it is more than pictures; it is his voice, his accent, his demeanor, his face, his music... everything... there is a reason they stopped touring after 66.

Please if you are on the fence... google back and forth "Paul McCartney 1966" then "Paul McCartney 1970" or any date after 66.

IT'S A DIFFERENT MAN.

I'm sorry I haven't figured out how to edit yet ... (when I do it does not offer me the option to re-post?)

Watch this video and pay attention to the time 1:24 to 1:28

"but now's gone" and a close-up of his face... it is disturbing. Touching.

Watch it. Amazing song as well. And even "amazing" is an amazingly belittling word for it.

In the following vintage film from probably 1969, the Australian reporter thinks Strawberry Fields is the name of both an orphan's home in one location, but also the name of a cemetery in another location. Interesting...

www.youtube.com...

"Will 'Paul' be back as Superman?"

Another strange comment in the clip is towards the end when the reporter says he suspects that Paul was secretly recuperating from a terrible accident and when he recovers would reappear. That's nonsense because the fellow going around today as "Paul" is the same guy who took over at the end of 1966.



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

Originally posted by MavRck
Watch this video and pay attention to the time 1:24 to 1:28

"but now's gone" and a close-up of his face... it is disturbing. Touching.

Watch it. Amazing song as well. And even "amazing" is an amazingly belittling word for it.

Yeah, I think you forgot to post it, but you mean the Anthology version of "For No One," right? Some of us think that's a clue. It's interesting how the video still is at that exact moment, too. Serendipity, I guess.



It is a brilliant song, IMO. I love the horn & the bass.



[edit on 16-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]