Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Paul's looks changed noticeably from Aug 1966 to Dec 1966. That nose is quite a bit longer on the right. It's just an illusion that they're the same.

EX-BEATLE ACCUSED OF FAKING PATERNITY TEST
Paul McCartney Under Investigation in Berlin

... A speaker for the Berlin public prosecutor's office, Michael Grunwald, confirmed on Friday to reporters that the office is investigating claims that McCartney faked a paternity test 23 years ago.

Bettina Krischbin, a 46-year-old Berliner, claims that the superstar is her dad. She also says he sent a stand-in to take a blood test back in the 1980s. McCartney has always denied being the woman's father and when the blood test proved negative in 1984, a Berlin court dismissed her claim...

ow she wants to prove that McCartney sent a body double to take the blood test. "The signature in the old documents is false," she told the mass-circulation Bild Zeitung. "We have found the signature is from a right-handed person, but Paul is left-handed."...

rika Hübers says she supports her daughter's wish for a new paternity test and recognition as McCartney's daughter. "I think we have a good chance now," she said, "because he lied to the court -- provided it with false evidence."...

www.spiegel.de...

You'd swear it was a criminal offence or a blatantly obvious sign because he had the temerity to write something that wasn't a major hit.

Someone once said Paul could have fallen on a piano & written a hit. I do think the noticeable decline in quality is at least anomalous. I love every single one of Paul's songs. Don't you think it's odd that he just got worse & worse over time? It is very unusual. Most composers & musicians seem to improve w/ maturity & experience.

What about all of the brilliant songs he has written as a solo artist and with Wings?

Who knows if Faul even wrote those songs? There were plenty of song-writers out there who could have written them. Neil Diamond wrote songs for the Monkees, for ex.

I imagine you're still reeling from Wally's post above.

Which post? I hadn't even noticed it. lol

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Paul's looks changed noticeably from Aug 1966 to Dec 1966.

No they didn't. Only according to 'Paul is dead' believers like yourself
who will go to any means necessary to try and make a believable
story out of this preposterous idea.
The only changes were natural ones, natural again, weight gain/loss,
differences in hair length and style, growth of facial hair, different fashion etc etc just like it was for each other Beatle and young person growing up in the 1960's.
Nothing to see here folks, now please move along.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Don't you think it's odd that he just got worse & worse over time? It is very unusual. Most composers & musicians seem to improve w/ maturity & experience.

Oh come off it, I mean really who are you trying to kid?
Most eh? What are your prime examples?

David Bowie was a massive superstar of the 70's, he wrote
some groundbreaking songs and he released what is regarded
as far from his best or most influential material later in his career.
He then bounced back to form as he entered his 40's/50's much
like Paul McCartney and released some excellent material.
What does that prove eh? The Rolling Stones, namely Mick Jagger would
be another example to counter your pointless notion.


Also can you please refrain from spamming the thread with those
ridiculous Youtube videos which consist of no more than a very poorly
produced and edited montage of Beatles pictures with a voiceover.
They serve no purpose whatsoever except to further ridicule you
and this theory which you so adamantly believe in.

Which post? I hadn't even noticed it. lol

Of course you didn't. @@:
This one....:

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Just as I thought, you only see what you want to see, you've got yourself so convinced of this hoax you are being irrational.

Let's put this to rest once and for all...


Open this in a gfx editor and measure my lines, they are exact in each face. There is no denying it's the same face.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by pmexplorer
You're probably wasting your time to be honest Wally, she will just continue to post these pathetic youtube videos and edited photos from various 'paul is dead' sites to try and eek out another page or two
out of this made up nonsense whilst completely ignoring the excellent
and quite simplistic comparison you have made .

Thanx, and yes you're right as we can see...

To the PID crew...
There is no way they could have found someone who had exactly the same skull size, chance in a trillion. Skin and cartilage can change shape and size over time, but not the skull. Eye colour can change, but not the distance between them. Proved hoax, from the PIND crew...

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Originally posted by pmexplorer
You're probably wasting your time to be honest Wally, she will just continue to post these pathetic youtube videos and edited photos from various 'paul is dead' sites to try and eek out another page or two
out of this made up nonsense whilst completely ignoring the excellent
and quite simplistic comparison you have made .

Thanx, and yes you're right as we can see...

To the PID crew...
There is no way they could have found someone who had exactly the same skull size, chance in a trillion. Skin and cartilage can change shape and size over time, but not the skull. Eye colour can change, but not the distance between them. Proved hoax, from the PIND crew...

Ahh we have both pauls skulls to show now ? wheres the link ? Until the PIA movement decides to actually explain the mass of issues there are, There is no way in any form this is a hoax. In Fact the more i see the PIA shy away from the topics, the more i realize its not a hoax.

To Pmexplorer and Wally,

I am more than happy to jump to you guys side here. As I am not convinced either way. The thing I would like is for you to answer 1 question so I can forget this thread.

Explain the height difference

It could be the pictures were taken at different angles and he only appears to be taller. However I have seen photos, both from straight ahead and he appears taller (much taller). Do you have a reasonable answer for this?


Explain that and I have no reason to consider this anymore. If you can't, then you can't say it's a hoax, just yet.

I'm with ya as far as putting picture after picture up, I don't think it proves anything. Just as you putting your pictures up proves nothing. However there are a few legitimate questions here that no one has been able to answer.

"Paul Is Dead" (2000): German movie by Hendrik Handloegten
www.imdb.com...

My summary:

Tobias sees the white VW Beetle, license plate LMW 28IF, of Abbey Road driving in the city. A British guy is driving it. He goes into a store and drops a cigarette package w/ a number on it in the trash. Tobias picks it up & follows the car around.

Tobias listens to a Beatles special on the radio hosted by Allen Banks. The quiz question is: “What does John say at the end of Strawberry Fields?” Tobias goes to a music store b/c the owner (Roger) speaks English. Roger tells him about PID, but that he isn’t allowed to tell anyone. He seems to be worried about the driver of the Beetle finding out.

Tobias tells his friend, Helmut. Tobias thinks what happened is that on Nov. 6, 1966, Paul left the studio after fighting w/ the others. He got into his Aston Martin & drove off. At Abbey Road & Wellington, he got into an accident w/ this white Beetle. Paul was crushed & beheaded. Nothing happened to the guy in the Beetle. Brian Epstein kept it a secret & replaced him w/ a double.

Tobias shows his friend the height differences, the OPD (OPP) patch, the P?/violin bass on Sgt Pepper, the grave, the hands over Paul’s head, John’s sign of the beast on Yellow Submarine, the black flower on “Your Mother Should Know,” the Abbey Rd funeral procession, Faul being barefoot (b/c the Mafia does that), Faul smoking w/ his right hand, and 28IF licence plate - Paul would’ve been 28 if he had lived. They also notice the guy on Abbey Rd by the police van.

They call the number on the cigarette pack, which is answered by the caretaker of their school. They stake him out, but that seems to go nowhere - it’s a false lead.

Tobias gets the idea to listen to records backwards - they don’t really go into that.

Tobias tells his brother that Billy Shears is the double. Billy was a young musician from Liverpool who played w/ the Beatles at the Kaiserkeller in Hamburg on 6 Oct. 1960. He had a big nose, & got made fun of for it. On 17 Nov. 1960, he’d had enough, & set fire to the room that Paul & Pete Best were staying in. The cinema burned down. Paul & Pete were arrested, & all the Beatles were deported back to Liverpool. After Paul died, Brian Epstein remembered Billy, and paid to get him a new nose.

The radio announcer on the Beatles special talks about the Russ Gibbs 1969 radio show that started the rumor that Paul was dead. Then says the story is stupid b/c Paul would’ve been 27, not 28 when Abbey Road came out, and b/c John said “cranberry sauce,” not “I buried Paul.”

Tobias’ brother is at a bar & tells Roger about his brother & the PID story. Roger takes off right away. Tobias goes to Roger’s flat looking for him. He crawls in a window. The white Beetle drives up w/ Roger & the mysterious Brit driver. Tobias hides in a closet. They come in, & the Brit starts shooting gun in the flat at random things. Tobias freaks & runs out. The two chase him. Togias gets to his house before they catch up to him, & they drive off.

Tobias is at school, when they are introduced to their new English teacher - Mr. Billy Reash (“Shear” backward). He just happens to be the mysterious Brit Beetle driver - & he’s from Liverpool. He goes right up to Tobias & asks him his name. When Tobias doesn’t answer, he says, “I think I will call you ‘Paul.’” Tobias freaks, but nothing ends up happening to him.

At the end, his brother wakes him up to tell him John has been killed. Tobias says, “Billy!”

Explain the height difference

Simple. There are 2 different guys. One is taller. I guess some people will say it must be anything but that. lol





[edit on 14-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

reply to post by Wally Hope


Hi,

I don't want to be difficult but there is a massive difference in the size of Paul's earlobes in your pictures.

As far as I understand it they are pretty much guaranteed to grow longer as you get older. Yet, young Paul's ear lobes look a lot longer than elderly Paul's.

Couldn't we expect it to be the other way round? I can see how carefully you have chosen the pictures to match the length of the head and to establish that they eyes and mouth are in the same place so it's hard for me to understand the difference in the ears.

Honestly, I am beginning to think that there have always been two Pauls

Faulcon - that's pretty obviously a fake Ringo

[edit on 14-7-2009 by berenike]

Faulcon - that's pretty obviously a fake Ringo

Maybe a fake Jim McCartney, too. lol

But yeah, Paul's ears stuck out more than Faul's:




And at a difft angle:

reply to post by berenike

Dude everything about the old Paul and young Paul's skull match perfectly, you can't deny it after the image I posted, try it yourself if you don't trust my work. It's easy to do, match up one set of features, I used the eyes, then if everything else matches when you have them to scale then the fat lady has sung, period!

The ears don't match because of the tilt of his head that I noted when I first posted it. You don't have to match EVERY feature anyway, just the important ones the don't change, the skull, as you can see from my image match exactly vertically and horizontally.

As far as his height, please show me something that proves there is a height difference, and not what's already posted because as none of that is credible evidence. Photography is not going to convince me that his height changed unless you have one with a tape measure next to him.

Everything else has just about been explained elsewhere in this groundhog day thread. If you all think logically and rationally for a minute you'd see the truth...The Walrus was Faul...Hahahahaha...

Originally posted by Wally Hope
reply to post by berenike

 

Dude everything about the old Paul and young Paul's skull match perfectly, you can't deny it after the image I posted, try it yourself if you don't trust my work. It's easy to do, match up one set of features, I used the eyes, then if everything else matches when you have them to scale then the fat lady has sung, period!

The ears don't match because of the tilt of his head that I noted when I first posted it. You don't have to match EVERY feature anyway, just the important ones the don't change, the skull, as you can see from my image match exactly vertically and horizontally.

I do trust your work, I thought I had made it clear that I thought you had done a very careful job.

It was the very fact that the images matched exactly vertically and horizontally (as you point out) that threw me.

Thanks for the response.

Edit to add - looking at the shadows on young Paul's face you can see where the wrinkles were going to appear later on.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by berenike]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
But yeah, Paul's ears stuck out more than Faul's:

I remember on one of the other PID boards, one of the members that was arguing PIA, couldn't deny that Paul's ears stuck out more before 1967 and reasoned that Paul had had his ears pinned back. LOL

Originally posted by Strictsum
To Pmexplorer and Wally,

I am more than happy to jump to you guys side here. As I am not convinced either way. The thing I would like is for you to answer 1 question so I can forget this thread.

Explain the height difference

.

Here you are mate: explained in great detail...
I'd post the info here but I have no idea how to embed photos
or youtube videos.

www.paulisnotdead.com...

reply to post by pmexplorer


Seems to explain it pretty clearly.

Good post by Ar20:
www.davidicke.com...

Here's a smoking gun you all should really be aware of:

Paul McCartney, was a nail biter.

You're lucky to find even a few cases of FAUL doing this, and if anyone knows anything about nail biting.... you know you need therapy to get rid of this habit, right? There are adults who even thumb-suck, and there are photos of Paul doing that a few times.

And here are two instances in interviews where he does it:

Paul McCartney Interviewed By David Frost
[1:05 onwards]

Beatles conference: Los Angeles August 18, 1964
[3:55 onwards]

He has a tick where he either puts his hands on his face, then gets his pinky and starts biting on it. There are a few more cases on this, but you'll have to look at pre-66 youtube videos.

Faul in the famous '___' interview:
McCartney '___' interview

You'd think being questioned about a hard-drug would trigger that nervous tick, right?

I'm wondering why the PIA'ers don't post some pics of Paul w/ green eyes. Maybe they can't find any? lol

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Here's a smoking gun you all should really be aware of:

Paul McCartney, was a nail biter

OMG!! The shock. Ring the papers quick!

Wow what next, Paul only blinks once every three minutes
but in 1968 he blinked twice!!

You've be called out and your 'evidence' has been shown up for what it is time again and again and yet you continue nonchalantly.

A word of advice, take off your ''PiD'' blinkers and try actually acknowledging the posts which rebuke the regurgitated pictures and
videos which you are lifting from other conspiracy sites please.





[edit on 14-7-2009 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by SednaSon

I remember on one of the other PID boards, one of the members that was arguing PIA, couldn't deny that Paul's ears stuck out more before 1967 and reasoned that Paul had had his ears pinned back. LOL

I guess Paul got a nose job, too, to make it longer & beakier. Maybe he was tired of being the "cute Beatles" & wanted to be the "creepy Beatle?" lol

Oh, he also must have defied medical science & grown 2 1/2 inches in his mid-20's. lol


[edit on 14-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by pmexplorer

www.paulisnotdead.com...

You have got to be kidding me.. Ok I can believe the stilts thing.. The Ductape behind the ears thing ... Hell even the drastic Growth spurt .. But this takes it to far beyond idiocy ...

To explain this:




We are going to give you this crap:



Straight on Camera Shot: Meaning Same Level.



Airial View: Aka if you have shots where the beatles are looking up at the camera or You are looking "Down" onto them .. Though we want you just to believe its makeing the blue marker somewhat bigger ...



Below shot: or camera angled UP.. Which is supposed to explain the shot above, if your an idiot that you have forgotten the paul shot was not from a ground to up shot. But in this comparison you should forget that portion and believe the camera man ran over to them as they are walking away and onto his knees, artificially makeing paul much taller ... But with these markers and with this "Free" range we cannot make the red marker appear that much taller on our photos, hence you are not supposed to "think" Just believe the contradiction im giveing you.

So now since your dumb enought to believe this we will show you this:



And tell you that ian is on his toes, since the black shoes is supposed to make things somehow blurry, so that you can try to pretend thier is creases at the mid top shoe mark that realy isnt there!

What i would give for a real break down on part with the PIA movement.. But believe thats impossible.



[edit on 14-7-2009 by Bldrvgr]