Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

People need to keep an open mind on this. An open mind is the best thing that you can have. This is one area that many conspiracy theorists have trouble grasping. I suspect the reason why is that people get attached to their celebrities. It's hard to face that the guy you are a fan of is really a double.

Paul went through an enormous change in late 1966. I've seen simply too much evidence that there are two separate men for me to ignore. I am sorry if I offend anyone, especially fans, but the Paul McCartney of 1966 and before is a different person from the Paul McCartney of 1967 to today.

Cheers

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob




all your pictures are showing one Paul with facial hair and one without.
Of course there will be a difference.

And the top one from this.... he's pulling a face so his chin/jaw appears bigger



Drugs and being on the road do funny things to people....as does aging.

[edit on 28/5/09 by blupblup]

This is my favorite and most humorous of all conspiracies.
First time I read it I could not stop laughing. But hey, I am not saying it is not possible.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by cindymars]

Remember truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed, then it is violently rejected, then it is accepted as being self-evident.

To the person that made the comment about facial hair, well facial hair does not make your face grow long. Faulcon was trying to show the differences in the face and the only pics to compare Paul of 1966 to Paul of 1967 are where he is wearing a mustache. Facial hair was used to cover up differences in the face.

Paul went through an enormous change in late 1966.

One of the differences is that Paul had brown eyes & Faul has green eyes:







Faul's green eyes in the Strawberry Fields Forever video:



You can also see that the picture of Faul from "Spies Like Us" does not match up w/ a picture of Paul from "A Hard Day's Night":




[edit on 28-5-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

[edit on 28-5-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


This is just getting sillier. Eye color can look different under different light, and especially in photographs taken years apart. Eye color changes with age also usually from dark to light.

My eye color goes from green to grey to blue depending on the light and my mood.

I suggest you take a different person and do the same research and I think you'll find, according to your logic, everyone has died and been replaced.

Give it up man you have no argument here, Paul is the same Paul, and no I'm not a fan so don't go there.

Certain emotions can change both the pupil size and the iris color. That's why some people say their eyes change colors when they're angry or loving.

Eye color also can change with age. This happens in 10 to 15 percent of the Caucasian population (people who generally have lighter eye colors). For instance, my once very brown eyes are now hazel, a combination of brown and green. However, some hazel eyes actually get darker with age.

www.allaboutvision.com...

I've been googling images again, this time concentrating on his hands. I can't get a decent enough set of pictures to make a comparison, but they don't look very different except for aging. The fingernails look about the same.

I saw one recent picture where he has his hand up showing the palm. If an old picture of Paul's palm could be found that would be a good comparison to make.

I can see that his eyes are a lot paler now but my eyes are a different colour now than they were some years ago.

I've gone from hazel to greyish green. If I wake in the night my eyes are bright green.

I'm trying to be as open-minded as I can and I'm not a fan of Paul McCartney's. Actually I can't stand his music but I do find this very interesting.

During my search I found a picture of Paul's son, James. He looks more like the elderly Paul we see today than the young Paul from the 60's. Unless he's Faul's son?

Another difference is that Faul is taller than Paul was by about 2 1/2 inches.

Here is a picture of Paul standing next to Ringo compared to Faul standing next to Ringo.



Another comp of Paul & Bill w/ Jane Asher:

A few of my favorite intrigues on this subject.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

There are two more one is a later interview of Faul and the other is his ex-wife stating that a secret should it be disclosed would devistate beatles fans around the world.

I would assume there is a gaga order due to many fronts.

The crash conspiracy and the kidnapping conspiracy are very interesting.

The decision to stop touring and grow beards at and for quite a while after the alleged death is also noteworthy.

The beattles going to india and all was said to be part of it as well as backmasked lyrics and hidden clues in albums and animated movies and appearances.

A great marketing technique or a career based on the missing paul and attempts to comune spiritually with him from beyond is said to have obsessed John, theory has it.

A great conversation piece over the years nonetheless.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by imd12c4funn]

I actually had to quit doing the search for differences between them and I'll demonstrate it with two photos, that I can't embed right now, so I'll give the links. The earlier Paul/Faul photos did look different for face shape, even if we ignored the nose, but photos change, people's faces, such as baby fat, change, and bone structure actually changes often between early twenties and late. He was only 22? in 66. Pretty young.

This link shows that in 66 he was taller than the othersl

here

The link doesnt take you to it, but if you click on view the gallery, then its the third one from the bottom on the right hand side.


This picture, in 1968, while he was only roughly 24, (and I think he's quite beautiful in this one, shows his nose is still the same smaller shape, and his face still has the wider look across the eye and cheekbone area, and the fuller cheeks, which is exactly what I was looking for because I can capture a likeness in portraits and bone structure is important, but, lights, hair, angles, cameras even, expressions which changes the minute muscles in the face, and age changes things.
here

Edit to add: his eyes are still very dark brown looking as well.



[edit on 28-5-2009 by mystiq]

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
There are two more one is a later interview of Faul and the other is his ex-wife stating that a secret should it be disclosed would devistate beatles fans around the world.

Listen to what Heather Mills says, particularly at 1:00:


www.youtube.com...




[edit on 29-5-2009 by SednaSon]

[edit on 29-5-2009 by SednaSon]

Here are pictures of Paul's left and right palms taken when he was elderly:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/242aaaf7549f.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/670056385ed0.jpg[/atsimg]

The second picture is a lot clearer, but if you can enlarge either picture you can get a good idea of the head, heart and life lines.

Can anyone provide pictures of pre-1965/6 Paul's palms?

[edit on 29-5-2009 by berenike]

Here is a picture of The Beatles in their 'hairy' period. This is the best one I could find of them all standing together in a straight line. Paul and George are about the same height, I'd guess John is very slightly shorter and Ringo, of course, is very much shorter:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/518feb75ac23.jpg[/atsimg]

Here is an early picture of them on stage - George and Paul are standing together. Again, they look about the right height:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7d0eabe63008.jpg[/atsimg]

I have done my best to find pictures where they are standing straight, together and you can see their feet.

It should be remembered that stack-heeled boots were fashionable in those days which would add a little to their height. And they wouldn't all be wearing the same type of shoes at the same time.

As far as the pictures of Paul and Jane Asher go, she could have been wearing high heels in one picture and not in the other.

This is the best I can do with google, but anyone with a bit of patience can trawl through the pictures and make other comparisons - for or against the debate.

I'm looking for features which would be harder to alter than the shape of his face or nose.

He seems to have a little indent on his right ear lobe which has been pretty consistent in the photos I've looked at.

Further height comparison:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/779ffd987b25.jpg[/atsimg]





[edit on 29-5-2009 by berenike]

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


Again you are clutching at straws.

The angle a photo is taken can easily make people look taller or shorter.

You need to study other people to have a better idea of how small minute differences you are pointing out can be possible.

If it wasn't Paul it would be obvious.

But I guess you don't care as you are ignoring my posts you want to believe it's not Paul for some reason.

reply to post by berenike


Check his shoulders out in the picture. First by the folds in his clothes, he looks like he's leaned his butt back a bit. Even at that, his shoulder is still higher than the two beside him. Even in the bottom picture, also he seems to be the tallest in all of them, about 2 inches taller. John Lennon is the second tallest in the band.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by mystiq]

reply to post by mystiq


Here's a great site for early pictures of The Beatles:

www.mybeatles.net...

There's even a good picture of Paul holding both hands above his head, palms outwards. Frustratingly, I can't work out how to enlarge it since I can't download it.

There is also a picture of him in an old-fashioned striped bathing costume. I wanted to compare his legs with the recent pictures of Paul and his new girlfriend at the beach, but again I can't enlarge the image to make a proper comparison.

I'm going to take a break on the height comparisons because I can't find any more suitable pictures - the attached one doesn't show their feet so you can't tell if Paul is standing on a box. I do take your point that Paul could be hunched a bit in the picture from my previous post although he still looks baby-faced which sort of compensates

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6fb5cdfbbfb7.jpg[/atsimg]

All the information I've found on the heights of individual Beatles put John, George and Paul at 5' 11" and Ringo at 5' 8".

[edit on 29-5-2009 by berenike]

The Beatles not only left clues about Paul's death in the late 60's but were still leaving clues well into the 90's and beyond. Here is a video clip from the Anthology. At 1:25, the song lyrics are "But now he's gone" just as they show a close up of Paul's face.


www.youtube.com...

Heather Mills said in an interview during the divorce: “you know why I’ve left you. Protect me & I will say nothing.” Something so awful happened that was beyond belief. Someone she had loved betrayed her immensely, & not infidelity. (She admits this was "Paul.") Says people don’t want to know what the truth is b/c they could never handle it. They would be too devastated. From this interview:

paul is dead - the rotten apple 63 u
www.youtube.com...

In this interview, she talks about putting evidence in a box & giving it to a friend in case anything happens to her:

Heather Mills McCartney GMTV interview part 1
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by woodwytch
Anyhoo, in this dream of mine I saw Paul McCartney shot and killed ... he was inside a dimly lit room when this happened and there was more than one person in the room ... there was also a bit of pushing and jostling before the shooting (in my dream).

It was so vivid that I was sure there would be a news report in the coming days about the death of a Beatle. And there was ... but it was George Harrison. I thought this was a bit of a coincidence and that as predictive dreams go ... I was pretty s#*t !

That is really amazing. There are some of us who believe this is what happened, or something similar. I do believe Paul was murdered & replaced sometime around Sept 1966. I strongly suspect Illuminati involvement.

Something else that doesn't quite add up has to do with Mal Evans. He was the Beatles' roadie & knew them since 1963. He wrote an unpublished autobiography. It was part of an archive that went missing when Mal himself died in bizarre circumstances in 1976. Mal Evans was shot and killed by the police on 5 January 1976. The officers mistakenly believed that the air pistol Evans was holding was a rifle.

Before his death Evans was working on a book of memoirs called “Living The Beatles' Legend,” which he was supposed to deliver to publishers Grosset and Dunlap on 12 January 1976... On the night of Evans' death, he was so despondent that Fran Hughes (g/f) phoned his collaborator on his book, John Hoernie, and asked him to visit them. Hoernie said Evans told him to make sure that he finished "Living The Beatles' Legend"...

Evans was cremated on 7 January 1976 in Los Angeles. Evans' ashes were sent by post back to England, but were lost in the postal system... A suitcase that Evans was carrying at the time of his death, which was supposed to contain unreleased recordings, photos and other memorabilia, was lost by the police during the investigation. Portions of the book have been published, but not all.


[edit on 29-5-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Heh.

Interesting topic, when i was in Grade 6 (approximately 1986) my music teacher pointed out this 'theory' and i've been interested ever since.

I went digging again a few weeks ago to show some of my british friends for their opinion but didn't recieve any replies. It's basically like saying to them "hey the grass is blue not green!"

But this site has some very interesting observations, mainly from album covers. It has a lot of info..worth checking out:

ispauldead.com...

cheerz everyone.