Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
PID on Freeman Perspective:
mp3.oraclebroadcasting.com...

Faulcon


Thanks for posting that link, it was grand to hear the word spread over the airwaves. Spontaneous sincerity can be better conveyed by the human voice, as we all notice in the case of early Paul. And radio is a valid complementary media given that it reaches people randomly, even those without interest in message boards or conspiracy theories.


Unless Paul slipped on a banana peel and his managers and group mates were so utterly greedy that they cooked up an amateur replacement scheme, it stands to reason that there was a considerably larger conspiracy. This makes the likelihood of a conspiracy considerably higher than that of spontaneous reactions of greed and duplicity. The multi-generational length of this substitution slams the door on those who think that it might have been an arrangement of convenience: in a rapidly changing world, convenience seldom remains a constant.

Originally posted by Getsmart
Thanks for posting that link, it was grand to hear the word spread over the airwaves. Spontaneous sincerity can be better conveyed by the human voice, as we all notice in the case of early Paul. And radio is a valid complementary media given that it reaches people randomly, even those without interest in message boards or conspiracy theories.

I was surprised & pleased that the people who called in were clued in to the replacement. Of course, people who are going to be listening to that type of show are going to be more knowledgeable than most about Illuminati, etc.

Unless Paul slipped on a banana peel and his managers and group mates were so utterly greedy that they cooked up an amateur replacement scheme, it stands to reason that there was a considerably larger conspiracy. This makes the likelihood of a conspiracy considerably higher than that of spontaneous reactions of greed and duplicity. The multi-generational length of this substitution slams the door on those who think that it might have been an arrangement of convenience: in a rapidly changing world, convenience seldom remains a constant.

It does seem ridiculous that the Beatles would cook up a hoax that Paul died. Why would they do that? It's kind of sick... And how would it get them more money, exactly (as though they needed it)? But yeah, if it had been just for the sake of convenience, I don't think there would still be an active effort to keep the illusion going. This is one reason I suspected Illuminati involvement - b/c the media was & still is playing along.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by pmexplorer

typical insulting and rude post

I like you, I really do. It's good to see that some things are constants, such as your unrelenting rudeness and trying to derail this topic.

Well played lad.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by aorAki]

Insulting how by stating a fact?

So you're all for spamming then are you?

it's okay as long as it's on the 'pid' side right?

I'm not your 'lad' either.

Looks like your edit wasn't quick enough either.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by pmexplorer

I'm not your 'lad' either.

You act like my lad, laddie. Reread your first sentence of the post I replied to and see if you can work out why it's rude.

Maybe you just don't see it, which isn't that much of a surprise when you look at what your take on this theory is.

You seem to miss a lot of things.

Whether you like it or not, this theory appears to be reaching some sort of mass that makes it difficult to ignore and it's interesting to see all sorts of 'explanations' from the 'sir Paul' camp that don't quite make sense. Recently there has been a bit of light on the Beatles with Rolling Stone putting out limited edition covers, MOJO and Uncut talking about the Beatles and mostly revisionist RockBand guff.
The photos are most interesting and when I look at my original copy of Sgt Pepper (cost me a pretty penny, but I like the album) the 'clues' just stand out like dog's nuts. I guess you just have to have the eye for it, and an open mind.

This doesn't disrespect Paul McCartney, whereas continuing the myth most certainly does.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by aorAki]

Originally posted by aorAki

The photos are most interesting and when I look at my original copy of Sgt Pepper (cost me a pretty penny, but I like the album) the 'clues' just stand out like dog's nuts. I guess you just have to have the eye for it, and an open mind.

This doesn't disrespect Paul McCartney, whereas continuing the myth most certainly does.

'Clues' - in inverted commas as you posted yourself, which if you take the time to go through this thread from the start, have been explained, debunked and discussed many times over such as the Sgt. Pepper album sleeve for example.

This thread only continues because faulcon drags in some of her buddies to rehash old 'evidence' again and again ad nauseaum whereas despite being asked time and time again to present something concrete as she so often states that she knows for a fact that Paul has died, she either a)puts the person asking on ignore and continues on her merry way or b) simply ignores the question and gives us paul comparison photo montage no. 109898787.

You hit the nail on the head there at the end.

As you said yourself "continuing the myth"

Myth being the operative word as far as this theory goes, lad.



[edit on 28-9-2009 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by pmexplorerThis thread only continues because faulcon drags in some of her buddies to rehash old 'evidence' again and again ad nauseaum whereas despite being asked time and time again to present something concrete.

this board's section is made for this type of thread.
faulcon is doing a great job about it
you're just trying to disrupt the thread and her right to hold it up and keep it going.

your repeatitive posts are not fitting to this board section's purpose, on the contrary this section was made to allow people posting conspiracy related stuff without having to face obsessive and misrepresenting "debunkers" like yourself, hell-bent on claiming that there is no material yada yada yada broken record old tired speech arent you tired of it?
you're its first victim, you should get a clue.

if you think i'm a friend of faulcon you're the paranoid deluded sucker on that one.

this section isnt about posting uncontrovertible evidence, get a clue.
maybe you should go thought-police another section.

there you go, as sad as it is it seems you need to reread this.. and again...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The ATS Back To Basics Campaign

This is a new initiative kicked off by this Skunk Works forum to have a dedicated place for ATS members to engage in speculative conspiracy theory discussions of all topics, angles, and targets. Our regular ATS forums have long since evolved into excellent zones of critical thinking and analysis that often either reveal or discredit many conspiracy theories. This attribute of ATS is certainly an important factor of our growth as we're the largest "alternative topic" discussion board by a major factor.

However, the skeptical and often intense nature of our regular forums can often be an intimidating environment for members with conspiracy theories based on more loosely connected tidbits of information (or even pure speculation) than is typically expected of posts in our main forums. Skeptical analysis and fact checking is certainly a cornerstone in the art of "Denying Ignorance", however, as the wonderful Mr. Einstein once said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." The true denial of ignorance must also include and often embrace even the most fanciful exaggerations of possibilities in order to understand and explore the upper limits of what might be possible.

if you cant stand people posting about conspiracies, what are you doing here seriously? having a blast sending negativity and trying to prevent people from discussing and sharing on these topics?

what's concerning to me is to see that this site that seems good at first sight condones and allows your obsessive compulsive posting of the blindest kind of pseudo debunking there is.
"haha show me the proof or stop posting".
i'm sure some skeptic church somewhere would welcome your posts.

OF COURSE faulcon has put you on ignore lol
you're not contributing anything but blindness, negativity and attempts to silence her and derail her action.
action which is what this board's section is created for.
i'm sure there's a door out somewhere.

edit : OMG it's displayed at the top of each page of this section's threads!!!

This forum is dedicated to the all-important highly speculative topics that may not be substantiated by many, if any facts and span the spectrum of topics discussed on ATS. Readers and users should be aware that extreme theories without corroboration are embraced in this forum. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.

try reading what's in your face everytime you read this thread


[edit on 28-9-2009 by quintal]

Originally posted by quintal
this section isnt about posting uncontrovertible evidence,

That's because there is none. Hmmm, wonder why?







Paul McCartney never died. Nor was he replaced.

Unfortunately some people wish to see conspiracies where there are non - such as PID.

Very sad.

If you can't see the differences in the pictures you posted, then of course you're going to say that nothing is there....as a riposte I will say that I see differences (they are subtle, mind, maybe you need a course in micropaleontology to calibrate your eyes?) in those pictures and while there are similarities between the two people you don't honestly expect that TPTB would impose an imposter who has no similarities whatsoever?

There are many people who see the differences (just not as many as those who deny them) and the fact that this will not lie down and roll over is a pointer towards this theory having legs of some description.

Originally posted by quintal

Originally posted by pmexplorerThis thread only continues because faulcon drags in some of her buddies to rehash old 'evidence' again and again ad nauseaum whereas despite being asked time and time again to present something concrete.

this board's section is made for this type of thread.
faulcon is doing a great job about it
you're just trying to disrupt the thread and her right to hold it up and keep it going.

I'm hardly doing my job of 'disrupting the thread' as you put it seeing as it's reached 140+ pages now am I?

So let me get this straight, you have a problem with people
asking for proof of wild theories like this which some are claiming as fact?
So should all those who don't believe in any particular theory just delete their profiles and leave or is it a crime to be subjective according to you?

Do you know what a discussion forum entails?

Or are you so upset because there are those who are unwilling to accept
such unsubstantiated theories and actually ask some common sense questions like why, how and how come?

Try reading through the entire thread and not just the last ten pages in which I haven't posted at all (before my post above today)
and then report back and then tell me I haven't contributed.

By the way I didn't know this was Faulcon's thread!!

She's not even the OP. But given the hypocritical nature of your post
I'm hardly surprised you have missed that much.

By the way a spell checker wouldn't go astray, what is "uncontrovertible evidence" exactly?

[edit on 28-9-2009 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by aorAki
If you can't see the differences in the pictures you posted, then of course you're going to say that nothing is there....as a riposte I will say that I see differences (they are subtle, mind, maybe you need a course in micropaleontology to calibrate your eyes?) i

Here's a perfect opportunity for you to illustrate to us these ''subtle differences''.

It's all well and good saying 'of course you're going to say that' and using the old 'well I wouldn't expect you to agree' because you're on the other side line etc.

The poster above has shown that is the same person.

The ''TPTB'' whoever they are sure did a great job, they manufactured a lookalike who not only could fool his friends and family but also a multi talented musician who could walk, look and sound the same.




[edit on 28-9-2009 by pmexplorer]

Do these people think this sort of subterfuge is "impossible?" How do they explain the fact that many people are starting to see that Paul was replaced? Not one person who called into the radio show thought Paul *hadn't* been replaced.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Do these people think this sort of subterfuge is "impossible?" How do they explain the fact that many people are starting to see that Paul was replaced? Not one person who called into the radio show thought Paul *hadn't* been replaced.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Faulcon and her 'facts' again.

How is it a fact that "that many people are starting to see that Paul was replaced".

Where is the statistic to back this 'fact up' ?

Is this on ATS, the internet or do you mean in the world this time?

People keep asking for "evidence." What do they think the biometrical analysis by the forensic scientists is? What do they think all the photo & video comparisons are for? This is how one would go about detecting a double - by looking at the physical characteristics & identifying the differences. This is what Dr. Dieter Buhmann of Homberg University in Saarland did to determine that there were approx. 3 Saddam Hussein doubles - he studied photos & video stills of "Saddam Hussein." It's a simple matter to apply that technique to photos of Paul McCartney. It's really not that hard. The constant demand for "evidence" rings really hollow. I also don't believe that someone who finds this theory "ridiculous" would spend so much time *trying* to debunk it.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Staying on topic and off each other would be prudent henceforth.