Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

I'm not lazy - I'm time challenged.
I'm not young - I'm in my fifties and have never met (or heard) of anyone who's eyes have dramatically changed AS AN ADULT (unlike the baby site you want to rely on) - they are also on that talking about blue eyes changing, not brown.
I do a lot research, but mostly it's on more global topics.
I've mostly read this thread, and your posts and looked at your scant sources and overall find you to be really, really, rude and belligerent .... (but that's just my opinion, not a well-documented, thoroughly researched fact)
I'm curious about the idea of Paul maybe being substituted - and find it so funny how adamant and angry and rude posters get for even entertaining the notion that it might be true.
I've said before here (but I'm sure you know that because you're brilliant and have a photographic memory), I do not know or have an opinion one way or the other about this and have looking at it every which way as others have.
There is a huge difference in his eye color - not subtle - and it happened as an adult, not a baby. That doesn't explain it enough for me to agree, it's only a "hmmm".
The height thing wasn't ever really proven either - just 'explained away'. Just like the Italian forensics was just 'brushed off'.
Real researchers keep an open mind and follow the clues, not try and fit results into their BS (belief systems).


reply to post by Wally Hope

www.beatlesagain.com...

There's an old statistics card on Paul describing brown eyes.

please read regarding eye colour:

de.answers.yahoo.com...

www.wonderquest.com...

notice the mentioning of brown and hazel

Faulcon has gone very quiet all of a sudden, hmm I wonder why.

Glad to see some common sense in the form of diabolo, magnolia and
wally on here.

Can't believe this nonsense has reached 50+ pages, almost as unbelievable
as the thread topic, almost.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Faulcon has gone very quiet all of a sudden, hmm I wonder why.

Glad to see some common sense in the form of diabolo, magnolia and
wally on here.

Can't believe this nonsense has reached 50+ pages, almost as unbelievable
as the thread topic, almost.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by pmexplorer]

Thank you for your input. I really appreciate the way that you provide so much with your posts.

I still haven't received satisfactory answers regarding the obvious fakery in the ears (as well as discrepancies in size, shape and relative height on the face), nor have you said anything to refute the Italians.
But you are consistent in your putdowns.

GG son.

reply to post by aorAki


to my knowledge of history the only beatle who ever died was John Lennon.

Originally posted by dreamseeker

to my knowledge of history the only beatle who ever died was John Lennon.

Do you know of the name 'George Harrison' ?
I'm glad you wrote history with a lower case 'h' though.

reply to post by aorAki


I am not sure what you mean by the lower case h comment?
Yes I remember George Harrison. He died in 2001; but I just learned this today.
I know Micheal Jackson's death was widely publsized yet a fomer Beatle there was not a word said?
I am a Beatles fan. I have watched the news in the morning, evening and night since 1995. I also went to the library alot in 2001 reading articles in magazines. There was not even a single article on it.
How can someone die without a single mention except for on the internet 8 years later. I have been on the internet since 1994.
I wander how I missed it; hell I remember when Walter Kronkite died, Mia Farrow, Chris Farley and a lot of other celebirties that I really did not pay much attention to.
According to my knowledge of history it never happened. Of course things can happen without me knowing about it maybe he had asked for his diease and his death to stay private.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by dreamseeker]

Originally posted by dreamseeker


I am not sure what you mean by the lower case h comment?

Upper case "H' implies that it is the Truth whereas lowercase implies the truth.
History is subjective. That was all that meant

reply to post by aorAki


Oh ok. History can also be altered. I was fascinated with the whole Paul is dead thing. There are some very convincing arguements. I really believe that Paul McCartney is the current Paul McCartney.
He had an accident in 1966 but he lived. He had to have some sugery that may have changed his appearence.
He was also quite young. Men often keep growing into their 20s.
There is always that possiblity in another worldline Paul did die.
I often wander if that is why there are so many different versions of the same story. Has the worldlines somehow been altered? I think the truth may be stranger than any urban legend.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by dreamseeker]

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


Darn - that video was removed

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Faulcon has gone very quiet all of a sudden, hmm I wonder why.

Glad to see some common sense in the form of diabolo, magnolia and
wally on here.

Can't believe this nonsense has reached 50+ pages, almost as unbelievable
as the thread topic, almost.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by pmexplorer]

gone quiet? She just posted yesterday. Thanks for bumping this thread again

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Faulcon has gone very quiet all of a sudden, hmm I wonder why.

Possibly because some of us have fulfilling lives outside the forums, which means that every so often we need to spend time away from here.
It doesn't imply anything else but a busy person.

Originally posted by Thrilla Kid
If Paul died in 1966, what was the point of replacing him? Was he such an icon that the truth about him being dead would be too "devastating"? How is it possible to perform a near perfect transformation in the 60's? Am I wrong for not thinking too highly of plastic surgery in the 60's?

I think for this, you have to start thinking along the lines of how controlled the entertainment industry is, & how it's used to manipulate the masses. There was a drug agenda back in the '60's (MK-ULTRA) to use '___' either for mind-control. or to just de-rail the anti-war movement. Maybe Paul wasn't a team player, wouldn't go along w/ the agenda to encourage drug use, & got offed. It's just a theory. I'm sure everyone on ATS knows people get murdered. A lot of people just don't realize sometimes murdered people get replaced w/ stooges.

Plastic surgery was already being performed on spies back in WWII. I'm sure the state of plastic surgery in the '60's would have been perfectly adequate to tweak Faul's face to make it look more like Paul's. See this link for info on plastic surgery in the 1940's:

Training SOE Saboteurs in World War Two
www.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by magnolia_xx

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
round face vs long, thin face

[edit on 27-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Hi Faulcon, sorry but I had a round face too when I was 20, now I am 33 and my face is thinner, this does not mean I am not the same person (I hope

)...

The thing is, Paul's face went from round to long & thin in a few months. Paul seems to have gone thru a lot of changes between Aug 1966 & Dec 1966. A little too many changes.

Aug 19, 1966 - round face v. Dec 1966


Aug 1966 v. Feb 1967


March 1967


1967 - No one really thinks that's Paul, do they?


This is Paul - 1965

As I've stated before, many pics of Paul have been tampered with. This is a screenshot I took myself of the Aug 19, 1966 interview in Memphis. Paul's face was quite round:



Whenever one sees a picture where his face seems long, then one must consider the possibility that it has been stretched, such as this one:



I have already pointed out several cases of photo tampering where pictures of Paul have even had someone else's face grafted on to his. The only reason I can think of why such tampering would occur would be to hide the fact that he was replaced. Why else would they put someone else's face onto the "cute Beatle?" That just doesn't make sense. Yet, here are 2 pics that have had a different face stuck on his:





I realize the implications of all of this are pretty disturbing, but if you want to see past the mindf**k, you should really try to see the differences here. Maybe then, you'll start to get an idea of the magnitude of the illusion that's been created for you.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by magnolia_xx

And the first time Paul's death was ever mentioned was on Nov 12th, 1969.

It would pay to read this thread rather than ride in here roughshod and pass this off as fact.

Read through the thread and you'll see that you are wrong.

That is true. There were rumors of Paul's death already in 1967, which the Beatles Monthly magazine tried to squelch quickly.

From the Official Beatles fanzine, the Beatles Book Monthly, Feb., 1967:

Stories about the Beatles are always flying around Fleet Street. The seventh of January was very icy, with dangerous conditions on the MI motorway, linking London with the Midlands, and towards the end of the day, a rumor swept London that Paul McCartney had been killed in a car crash on the MI. But, of course, there was absolutely no truth in it at all, as the Beatles' Press Officer found out when he telephoned Paul's St. John's Wood home and was answered by Paul himself who had been home all day with black Mini Cooper safely locked up in the garage.

beatles.ncf.ca...

People noticed something was wrong. Girls said the Beatles were "ugly" after seeing the "Strawberry Fields" promo video of 1967. A lot can change in a year...

[edit on 30-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Faulcon has gone very quiet all of a sudden, hmm I wonder why.

Possibly because some of us have fulfilling lives outside the forums, which means that every so often we need to spend time away from here.
It doesn't imply anything else but a busy person.

LOL! Yeah, I was out of town on business (I do have professional duties sometimes). As you can see, I'm making up for it now :-) But it's funny how some people automatically assume it means something.

Originally posted by berenike
I don't know if Paul ever went on a raw food diet, but he did become a vegetarian. He also went to India and stayed with the Maharishi. I believe that was to study transcendental meditation, and spiritual practices MAY have something to do with the colour of the eyes lightening.

Paul never went to India. He was gone by Aug-Sept 1966. The one who went to India was the imposter. Besides, the light green eyes were to be seen in Jan 1967 - "Strawberry Fields" video. So, we go from this




to this



Not so easy to explain except that you're looking at a replacement w/ difft colored eyes.

but think it's important to look at all the evidence as thoroughly as possible - in these circumstances. (That's not meant to sound snarky).

Yes, it would be nice if people would look at the evidence & then come up w/ a theory, rather than thinking they already "know" what happened, & then just dismissing evidence that doesn't fit their pre-conceived notion. There's a term for that - "confirmation bias."

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and to irrationally avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs...

en.wikipedia.org...

Hey, I thought I "knew" that that was the same Paul that was always there when I 1st started looking into this. Turned out I was wrong. A lot of things that never really seemed right started to make sense w/ the new paradigm, such as why did Paul suddenly lose his looks in 1967, why did his solo career never quite live up to brilliant songs Paul wrote w/ the Beatles, you know, little things like that.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

[edit on 30-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

i heard paul mccartney had atleast one freemason link before he was famous, i really despise the illuminati, has everone forgotton about them or is everyone bored of hearing/reading about that #?

[edit on 30-7-2009 by anon217]