Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by Osiris1953
Personally I don't believe it.


However, in the end, does it really matter? Even if Paul died in '66 and was replaced what's the difference really? The replacement still went on to help create some of the best music of the 20th century, and if that is in fact the case, I'm ok with that. Whether he happens to be Paul McCartney, Shepherd, or Marilyn Manson's Liverpool dwelling uncle, doesn't matter to me. What this individual has given the musical community, and music lovers everywhere is more important than an alleged identity theft from 43 years ago.

Whomever he is that is known as Paul McCartney now, still gets my respect, and that's good enough for me.

Yes, on one hand I understand and agree with you.

However, if Paul WAS replaced then I wish to find out more about the reasons/people behind the scenes and why they would continue to propagate this lie....if it is a lie....

I'm still unsure, but not certain enough to leave this as a dead dog.

However, in the end, does it really matter?

It matters if you want to know the truth about how the Illuminati operate & how they deceive people. Maybe it doesn't bother you that someone was killed & replaced, & someone else has been pretending to be him for over 40 yrs, but it bothers me. If you don't think that's important, then what is the point of discovering the truth about anything? What does it matter if 9/11 was an inside job? Does is change anything now? I just can't understand that attitude. It also bothers me how there's some sort of weird veil that keeps a lot of people from seeing the difference. One can point out all the differences like eye color, height, etc, & yet people still see them as being the same. it's kind of bizarre. Some people are being controlled & manipulated into seeing something that just isn't there. It's just an illusion.

Anyway, here is some US federal law on what can be used as evidence to establish identity. Photos & voiceprints can be used to identify people b/c they capture "immutable characteristics" and "identifying particulars."

[T]he term "record" means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, ... other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph... 5 USCS § 552a(4).

[T]he term "means of identification" means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any--
...
(B) unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation; ...

United States v. Hawes, 523 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. Pa. 2008); United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. S.C. 2008).

... [T]he district court found that duty titles were not comparable to captured immutable characteristics such as finger or voice prints or photographs. The district court reached these conclusions because an individual's duty title changes over time, because multiple people can concomitantly have the same or similar duty titles, and because each individual has predecessor and successor holders of the same duty titles. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the district court. In circumstances where duty titles pertain to one and only one individual, such as the examples of identifying particulars provided in the statutory text (finger or voice print or photograph), duty titles may indeed be "identifying particulars" as that term is used in the definition of "record" in the Privacy Act. For the reasons detailed by the district court, however, the [**9] duty titles in this [*188] case are not "identifying particulars" because they do not pertain to one and only one individual.

Pierce v. Dep't of the United States Air Force, 512 F.3d 184, 188 (5th Cir. Miss. 2007).

So, if the photos show different features, they're different people. I know some people will still argue w/ the law on this b/c they just can't let go of the illusion.


[edit on 9-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

If there is no Illuminati, would you still think Paul died circa '66?

If someone has not been seen since 1966, I think the chances are good that he's dead. Legally, he would be presumed dead after 7 yrs.

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


If the illuminati doesn't exist, who would you think is behind the Faul sham?

In my opinion, if there was no evil force such as the Illuminati secretly ruling the earth, then I would still notice the differences in the two Paul's and still think he was replaced. But my scenario for what happened would change. I would think that he died accidentally and that some organization created a double for him to continue the Beatles money-making machine that it was and maybe also to prevent teenage girls from committing suicide.

[edit on 9-7-2009 by SednaSon]

If the illuminati doesn't exist, who would you think is behind the Faul sham?

But they do exist. I also sense intell involvement in this.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

If the illuminati doesn't exist, who would you think is behind the Faul sham?

But they do exist. I also sense intell involvement in this.

Ah yes, try and save face by attacking me personally, you really
have no shame do you? And did I read it right back there that
someone said 'I suppose you think 9/11 was an inside job -preposterous''
firstly what the hell has my opinion on 9/11 got to do with this thread, secondly, please feel free to quote any post where I have supposedly said same. Tch tch.
You simply won't allow anything to interrupt
your vain attempts to convince anyone bar the sheep who I expect
you have msn conversations with long into the night with will you.

You say the illuminati exist now, where's the evidence? And I mean real evidence not some google search result directing to some website
which says that it exists.
Let me guess like this Mccartney stooge sham you are spouting about,
there is no real evidence apart from your ridiculous attempts to show that
photos from different years (which many I also suspect have been cleverly edited) show apparent differences in his features despite the fact that his jawline and most crucially his smile and teeth have never changed.
Alos as you and your mates have already been asked, explain your reasoning behind this supposed replacement of Paul by this other guy?
Why did it happen? Who benefitted from it?

Why do I post in here? Why is this thread solely for the 'believers' or are those who deny ignorance not welcome?
But don't let me stop you, keep those dodgy photos coming.
They're ace!

[edit on 9-7-2009 by pmexplorer]

[edit on 9-7-2009 by pmexplorer]

Ah yes, try and save face by attacking me personally, you really
have no shame do you?

So, you can dish it out, but you just can't take it. That's typical of bullies.

Let me guess like this Mccartney stooge sham you are spouting about,
there is no real evidence

Why don't you go back & read the laws I posted. Photographs ARE evidence. See, I knew some people would argue w/ the law. If you don't like the fact that photos are used to identify people, you should take it up w/ the US judicial system. Anyway. some of the photos I posted are 4 months apart & they show a big change in "Paul's" features. People's eyes don't change color in 1 year (or ever), they don't grow a couple of inches in their mid-20's, their ears don't suddenly attach differently. You're just buying into the illusion.

Alos [sic] as you and your mates have already been asked, explain your reasoning behind this supposed replacement of Paul by this other guy?

B/c the guy doesn't look or act the same.

Why is this thread solely for the 'believers' or are those who deny ignorance not welcome?

You're denying ignorance? lol! You're fighting hard to perpetuate the illusion that Faul is Paul. And you can't even see that you've been duped.

But don't let me stop you, keep those dodgy photos coming.

Oh, don't worry, I won't. I couldn't give a **** what you think. You obviously have impaired powers of observation, so your opinion carries no weight, as far as I'm concerned.

Consider the following scenarios:

1) If a prosecutor were to try to convince a jury that the defendant was the perpetrator, even though he had difft colored eyes, had difft shaped eyebrows, difft ears, was about 2 inches taller, etc, how successful do you think that would be? Do you think the jury would convict? Actually, if that were the case, that defendant wouldn't even be sitting there, b/c there'd be no probable cause to think it was the same person.

2) Suppose I were an under-aged kid who wanted to go out drinking. I borrow an ID from an older friend. The ID shows someone w/ different colored eyes, difft eyebrows, difft ears, a higher forehead, & on the face of the license, it says I'm 5'10" when I'm really not even 5'8". When I show that license to a cop, what do you think he's going to do? Personally, I think I'd be looking at a minor in possession charge.

3) Suppose you're a prosecutor. You have an eyewitness who says the perpetrator was about 5'11", had brown eyes, a round face, & a high-arching right eyebrow. You even have a photo of this person. The police bring in a guy w/ a long, thin face, green eyes, & is about 6'1". Are you going to file charges? Keep in mind that a prosecutor must have probable cause to think that the defendant did it.

Some information about the Illuminati:

THE ILLUMINATI: INTERVIEW WITH EX ILLUMINATI PROGRAMMER (Svali)
www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

An eye-witness says this is the suspect:



The police bring in this guy (who also happens to be 2 inches taller):



If a prosecutor filed charges, s/he wouldn't last long b/c s/he'd never get a conviction. S/he might also be looking at sanctions for prosecuting someone w/ no probable cause.

This picture the PIA'ers use to "prove" Paul & Faul are the same has been tampered with. Paul's face (on the left) has been stretched to look like Faul's. Paul's face was actually round.





[edit on 9-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


Well, I don't believe the Illuminati DOES exist.

But you're saying that the Illuminati was behind the Faul sham. So, they were benefiting from it financially, right?

So, EMI was channeling money to them? Northern Songs was channeling money to them? Who was the Illuminati connection? Was it one of The Beatles? Or George Martin, who originally signed them?

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
You obviously have impaired powers of observation, so your opinion carries no weight, as far as I'm concerned.

No in fact I just happen to have a brain and possess some common sense.
I don't believe in your wacky theories that Paul McCartney was the leader
of the illuminati, that he was/is caught up with Hillary Clinton (what's that about!) or that he's a reptilian shapeshifter (I'm taking liberties with that one as I expect you presumably believe in that bull**t aswell given your gullible nature)

As regards your question about court, if this went to court the judge would
declare it a mistrial due to lack of solid evidence.
A few edited / tampered photos contrasting images of a guy over a period
of ten years or so would not a case make. You'd be laughed out of court.

I ask you once again as has Fuggle, and taking into account that I understand you and your mates believe he was killed in a car crash or something, why was he replaced by a lookalike?
Who was behind it? If it was the Illuminati as you have already stated you believe, why did they get involved?
Who benefited from it?
How did they benefit from it?
Do you believe his own family accepted and were completely fooled by
a complete stranger for the rest of their lives to present day?
Were his bandmates in on it? If not you are happy then claiming that this 'Faul' person made the transition seemlessly?
How do you explain the fact that he continued to perform and sing, write and talk exactly like the 'original' Paul?
What of the stooge, a Mr. Shears is it you claim?What of his family and friends and colleagues, did he fake his own death? disappear?
So there isn't one person out there who knew/knows the truth who
could have exposed this travesty?

I can already predict the answers I'll get to these but I'm giving you
a final opportunity to prove , no just to me but to all others who
think you and fellow 'Paul is dead' believers are crazy for once and for
all that you're right about this.

I won't be holding my breath mind.

Oh and don't forget to respond to Fuggles' questions above either.

cheers.


[edit on 9-7-2009 by pmexplorer]

No in fact I just happen to have a brain and possess some common sense.

I'm sure you have a brain. Not sure about the common sense part. It doesn't seem like you have very good vision or eye for detail.

And people can believe the Illuminati exist or not. It has absolutely no bearing on whether they actually exist or not. I'm sure they prefer it if people don't believe they exist, actually, so they can continue to mindf**k unobservant people like you.

But hey, if you want to believe that some guy can change his eye color, his eyebrows, his forehead, his ears, his nose, & grow a couple of inches at 24, go right ahead. Some of us prefer reality to the illusion that certain people have created for the sheeple.


[edit on 9-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

No in fact I just happen to have a brain and possess some common sense.

I'm sure you have a brain.

[edit on 9-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

I sure do, now quit stalling and answer in detail the questions
I and the poster above me set you.

Good luck!

I'm not at your command. You should go back & read thru my previous posts, b/c those questions have already largely been answered.

It's not surprising that a taller guy would have bigger feet. Paul wore an 8 shoe. Faul wore a 9.5.