Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by aorAki
I saw on a PID-related forum something about the band Marmalade recording 'Obladi Oblada' before The Beatles and it reaching number one.

If this is so, why didn't The Beatles sue them?

Am I clutching at straws?

The song was actually wrote by Lennon and McCartney (or more accurately McCartney) for the band marmalade. A demo version was recorded by the beatles as a guide for them. It was never intended as a beatles song.


Wayne...

Thanks Wayne.

As I've said, I'm new to this 'theory' so I'm just trying to work it out.

So, why would they write a song for 'Marmalade' in the first place?
I know that there have been others who do, such as Bowie (All the Young Dudes), but what was their motivation for 'gifting' the boyos from north of the border a hit?...and why Marmalade? lol

The song wasn't written for Marmalade, they did a cover version of it in 1969, the Beatles version was on the White Album, and a single, released in '68.

The term 'Ob-La-Di-' etc., is Nigerian and Macca got sued by some tribe in Nigeria for using it, forget the name.

Paul also made a mistake when singing the lyrics that was left in, another clue for you all...

[edit on 21-6-2009 by Wally Hope]

Paul 1965 vs. 1967

Nice songs +1

What are we looking at here?...is there a change in eye colour?

I would appreciate a bit more substance to those posts i.e. what your take on them is....

Fishy.



[edit on 21-6-2009 by aorAki]

Originally posted by aorAki
Thanks Wayne.

As I've said, I'm new to this 'theory' so I'm just trying to work it out.

So, why would they write a song for 'Marmalade' in the first place?
I know that there have been others who do, such as Bowie (All the Young Dudes), but what was their motivation for 'gifting' the boyos from north of the border a hit?...and why Marmalade? lol

This is not the only band he wrote for. McCartney also wrote the number one hit for 'Badfinger' "No Matter What". Not unusual for bands to help one another out once and a while.

Originally posted by paxnatus


This is not the only band he wrote for. McCartney also wrote the number one hit for 'Badfinger' "No Matter What". Not unusual for bands to help one another out once and a while.

Sure...but why 'Marmalade'? lol

I wonder what he got out of it, as he certainly didn't have to do it.

reply to post by aorAki


Did you miss my post? They didn't write it for Marmalade, the song was recorded and released by the Beatles a year before Marmalade did it.

John and Paul wanted to be song writers in the vein of Tin Pan Alley, they wrote songs, and the songs would be picked up from their publisher by bands manager/producer for their band to record.

A good example would be 'I Wanna be Your Man' written by Lennon/McCartney and recorded first by the Rolling Stones. The Beatles recorded it themselves later. They wrote "A World Without Love' that Peter and Gordon recorded. The Beatles were given other peoples songs to record also, like the song "How do you do it', which was supposed to be their second single but they released 'Please Please Me' instead. Gerry and the Pacemakers recorded the song as their first single.

Badfinger was one of the bands on the Apple label, I think it was George who found them. All the Beatles were trying to find the next hit band to have on their new label so not surprising they did a Lennon/Macca song.

Ah...o.k...thanks for that.
I must admit that being born in 1970, most of my musical tastes are New Wave/Eighties influences and while I have heard all The Beatles albums I never really paid much attention to the 'backstory'.

Cheers

What are we looking at here?...is there a change in eye colour?

I would appreciate a bit more substance to those posts i.e. what your take on them is....

My take on it is that they are 2 completely different people. Don't the cheeks in that "Fool on the Hill" pic look just a little weird (on right)?



Anyway, it's not just a change in eye color, but that's certainly part of it.


















[edit on 22-6-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


They're the same person.

They're the same person.

Yeah, except for the eyes, the eyebrows, the faces, the ears, the heights, the voices, the personalities, the body hair, musical styles, they're exactly the same.

These are both pictures of Paul McCartney. The on the left is from 1964. The one of the right is from 1967. The same person? I don't think so. It's just the power of belief that keeps people from seeing the difference, imo.





[edit on 22-6-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


Can you go back 1 page and respond to some of the points that I make? They go beyond the visuals of this theory and attack it strictly at the heart. Those that believe in this theory only talk about the visuals, because that is as far as this theory goes.

As for the eyes, there are plenty of possible scenarios that are plausible.

It is thought that exposure to light after birth triggers the production of melanin in the iris of the eye. By three years of age, the eyes produce and store enough melanin to indicate their natural shade. While changes in eye color of infants are more common, even in adults, eye color changes are seen, most often as a result of exposure to the sun. Sunlight triggers melanin production in the eye, as it does to the skin.

en.wikipedia.org...

Exposure to sun? Or how about bright lights? Possible?

Again, please go back a page and address some of the points I made. If you get a chance.

Different film stocks can VASTLY change an image and its colour balance...as any professional photographer.

The points I mad in the video that point out that anotomically its the same man have STILL not been adressed either. Nor do I expect them to be as it bursts the little bubble that this theory lives in, outside of the laws of human anatomy.

As an artist I have to see what is there...not what I THINK is there. Its a fundametal skill in art.


Wayne...

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Um, no, actually. Linda Eastman,of Eastman Kodak, 's family money was a hell of a lot more than (Sir) Paul's.

And which pioneering British plastic surgeon did the work on "Billy"?

You're wrong. She was not familiar with the Eastman's who founded Kodak. Just had similar surname, nothing more. But she was raised on a wealthy family.

reply to post by longhaircowboy


This wouldn’t have been a big problem because the original Paul “Died” in 1966 the replacement Paul married Linda in 1969. So Linda would have only known the fake Paul.

reply to post by the secret web


Exactly where is your evidence that this is the same man? I have yet to see this. Exactly how do you know he is the same man physically?

reply to post by Fuggle


Maybe leaving clues was all part of the deal to go along with this conspiracy in the first place.

As far as what I hear being said at the end of the song, I certainly never would have thought that they said "cranberry sauce". The "I buried" part is pretty clear, yes, I would have heard that. The "Paul" part is a guess work. I heard this long ago, as a skeptic, my opinion hasn't changed. I first heard about this conspiracy after buying the Sgt Pepper's Album, and thinking that Paul did look different, and wondering about all the strange symbolism on the album cover.

Maybe you hear "cranberry sauce" because that is what you were told to hear, or because you can't even entertain the possibility that this could be true.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

They're the same person.

Yeah, except for the eyes, the eyebrows, the faces, the ears, the heights, the voices, the personalities, the body hair, musical styles, they're exactly the same.

These are both pictures of Paul McCartney. The on the left is from 1964. The one of the right is from 1967. The same person? I don't think so. It's just the power of belief that keeps people from seeing the difference, imo.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

I have to admit that i had never heard of this conspiracy before. I noticed this thread yesterday at the recent posts section and got seriously hooked by the subject! I just had to read the whole thread from the beginning and couldn't stop.

I just want to say that you got me convinced Faulcon. There is no way those two guys are the same person.

reply to post by chissler


I think you have written a good post here, and get at the heart of the matter as to why it would have been impossible to pull off replacing Paul. However, do you have any links to back up your claims about the tensions between John and Paul? With that in mind, my answers.

Paul could have developed an extensive list of songs that he had written before he died, maybe even including "Hey Jude". It is not unusual for song writers to develop extensive lists of songs once they get into that groove of writing songs. All those years on the road could have easily resulted in a large library of songs. The story about "Hey Jude" being about Julian could have just been made up. Honestly, it doesn't sound like he is talking about a child in these lyrics. "You have found her, now go and get her", how would a child go out and get his fathers new wife? It sounds more like he is writing about heroine addiction.

If there was this extensive list of songs that John wanted to see get put onto albums, that makes sense for the purest motives of John to go along with the conspiracy. Once he was in, and made the commitment, he was basically stuck, and would have been putting his own reputation on the line, and probably a whole lot of legal problems, possibly leading to jail time, once he agreed to go along with the whole thing. It seems that John did go through a paranoia period then.

They turned out a lot of albums in a short period. The idea that they were working on an already established song list makes sense. Maybe they were doing more of Paul's songs because that was the purpose.

Where is the evidence that Yoko directed John Lennon? I think the evil Yoko story has been over done.

Honestly, it seems impossible that Paul could have been replaced with a Faul. There are too many people who would have had to been involved. I think you mentioned earlier about Paul's family. How could they have convinced them to go along with this? Still, there are all these clues that seem to have been place in the songs and on the album cover. It seems beyond coincidence that all these things pointing towards Paul dying could have happened on accident. Paul's appearance also seems to have changed, and then all the facial hair, after having been clean shaved for so long. The Beatles themselves seemed to have changed. Maybe fame finally got to them. Then again, the whole world seemed to change at that time.

If Paul is now Faul, the guy who accepted the role has done an amazing job. I couldn't imagine living out one's life as another person. We all spend our moments staring into the mirror wondering who we are. It seems that someone wrote some great songs as Paul McCartney after 1966, or least did a great job performing those songs. I look at this as fun speculation, and a trip down memory, or Penny, Lane.


[edit on 22-6-2009 by poet1b]