Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Hi Parabol, I also read all these things in many Beatles books published in the years and I am very impressed, because not many people have the great knowledge of the Beatles and their music and even of what happened in the recording/mixing sessions, like you have.
The songs fragments mentioned above are jems, not "song miscarriages" written by an unispired lookalike, like someone seems to think.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Well, I happen to know for a fact Paul is dead, but it's not something I can prove, so I just try to show he was replaced. I don't really care if people believe me or not about his being dead.

Wa-hey! And there we have it folks.

In other news, I can now finally disclose that there are actually
aliens living on the Moon.
It's not something I can prove but I do know it for a fact
and let's face it, when it comes to concrete evidence that's all you
really need to know right.
I don't really care if people believe me or not because I know
I'm right and I'm cleverer than all of you.
Here's some dodgy photos and an accompanying youtube montage.
Please star me!


ps. Thank you for joining this thread Parabol, your detailed posts
are a most welcome addition.



[edit on 4-8-2009 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I don't really care if people believe me or not about his being dead.

WOW, then why are spamming TWO threads on the Icke forum and another one here, with an endless stream of comparisons of Paul and Paul??

Just stop it already!

Why don't you share your other insights from the PID MISS HIM forum here?

Like: John, George and Ringo ALSO got replaced (you call them Fohn, Feorge and Fingo)

Like that you think Pauls brain might have been downloaded into "Fauls"

Or that you are discussing that "Faul" is gay or even a hermaphrodite!!




Are you afraid, that people here might not take you serious anymore, if they knew that?

OOPPS ;-)

Really Paul is alive, at least for another 10 years i hope!!




[edit on 4-8-2009 by diabolo1]

[edit on 4-8-2009 by diabolo1]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Well, I happen to know for a fact Paul is dead, but it's not something I can prove

Falcon, please read that sentence again and tell me what it is supposed to mean. You know something for a fact, but you can't prove it. The only way for that sentence to be true is for you to have met Faul or witnessed a form of physical evidence which leaves no room for interpretation. Otherwise there is no fact, a belief is not fact.

Originally posted by Parabol

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Well, I happen to know for a fact Paul is dead, but it's not something I can prove

Falcon, please read that sentence again and tell me what it is supposed to mean. You know something for a fact, but you can't prove it. The only way for that sentence to be true is for you to have met Faul or witnessed a form of physical evidence which leaves no room for interpretation.

Your scenario is certainly not the only way someone can know something. If the last time Paul was ever seen alive was 1966, he'd be presumed dead in a legal sense 40+ yrs later. Anyway, how would I be able to prove he's dead? The crime scene - wherever it was - is over 40 yrs old. All that can be proven at this point is that he was replaced. Most people will be able to figure out that if he was permanently replaced, then he is most likely dead.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
All that can be proven at this point is that he was replaced. Most people will be able to figure out that if he was permanently replaced, then he is most likely dead.

So where is this proof? 61 pages now and still waiting. Proof is something that cannot be refuted, yet all you have presented so far has been refuted, you faulconb...er snowjob just keep dismissing it.

And you refuse to demonstrate the accuracy of your face recognition toyware, why is that? Are you hoping we'll forget now we're back to the beginning again? Happy groundhog day.

The proof of a double is different facial features pre & post 1966, different colored eyes, & difft heights. There is also evidence of right-handedness of Faul, difft musical style, & difft mannerisms. Photo-tampering has been shown & should raise a red flag. In addition, there are strange circumstances surrounding Mal Evans' death (lost remains, lost suitcase). Bettina Krischbin alleged a double gave blood in a paternity suit against "Paul." There are also many death clues. Earlier in the thread, we were discussing SFF. I believe it says "I buried Paul" at the end. John managed to convince most people it was "cranberry sauce," but people are starting to hear what he really said:

godadameve (15 hours ago) +1
fauldconadsnowjob: YES! Just this morning, I was watching Strawberry Fields video on Youtube and completely unexpectedly at the end: I CLEARLY hear: "I BURIED PAUL." He CLEARLY says this! I don't know what kind of GAME the Beatles were playing or WTF!!! But, when John later stated he said: "Cranberry Sauce' that was BULL#. He was trying to backtrack...why, I dunno!!

www.youtube.com...

As for Mal Evans' lost ashes, it is another urban legend:
Look here_
en.wikipedia.org...
"Evans' ashes were sent by post back to England, but were misplaced and lost in the postal system. Upon learning of the lost remains, John Lennon joked: "They should look in the dead letter file".[1] Evans' ashes were later found and given to his family."
There are references at the bottom of the webpage.

By the way, Faulcon, all you can say to prove Paul's replacement is to go on saying that the supposed lookalike is taller, with different eyes et cetera, even after most of your "proofs" have been confuted by many other people here?
And what about the replacement of the other Beatles? Why did you not speak of this in this forum, if you firmly believe they were replaced?
Can you provide the proofs, please?

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
The proof of a double is different facial features pre & post 1966, different colored eyes, & difft heights.

Again you forget this...



And this...



And all the others that have been posted since.

Sorry but they refute your claim, and you can't explain why.

There is also evidence of right-handedness of Faul, difft musical style, & difft mannerisms.

Again this has been explained in this thread. Your evidence for right handedness was a mirrored picture, obvious because the guitar he's playing is upside down, a common method for lefties to play a right handed guitar. Left handed acoustic guitars are rare, and ever rarer in the 60's, it would make no sense for a righty to re-string a lefty guitar.
The logical explanation is the pic was mirrored, which is very easy to do btw, even before photoshop.

Photo-tampering has been shown & should raise a red flag.

Nope, nothing in the photo tampering you've shown proves anything but photo's of Paul were edited by whatever photographer, or magazine, printed them. Your conclusion is not the logical one.

I believe it says "I buried Paul" at the end. John managed to convince most people it was "cranberry sauce," but people are starting to hear what he really said:

You mean you've convinced yourself it says 'I buried Paul'. John had no reason to lie, or keep the secret of Pauls replacement quiet.

But, when John later stated he said: "Cranberry Sauce' that was BULL#. He was trying to backtrack...why, I dunno!!

No not bs, as a recording engineer I have very good equipment and a good room, and I've listened on good sennheiser headphones. Some may argue different, but I believe I have golden ears. I'm not sure how you can claim for sure it says 'I buried Paul', when it's hardly discernible what is being said. You're hearing 'I buried Paul' because it's been suggested to you. I hear "Cranberry Sauce', because it was suggested to me. 'I buried Paul' requires a huge conspiracy, 'Cranberry Sauce' requires nothing but an understanding of John Lennon's humour. There's no real proof that either is right (except the horses mouth), but if it isn't 'Cranberry Sauce' it doesn't mean it's 'I buried Paul'.

None of those silly 'clues' mean anything, and piling bunk evidence on top of bunk evidence doesn't make it add up to a conspiracy.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Wally Hope]

Paul is my mom's fav beatle, she was in the 4th row at a beatles concert before 1966, probably around 1964-1965, and she sees him today on tv, and he's still her fav beatle, I think she'd notice, also this story is 100% rubbish and has been disproven time and time again, why even debate it? John is my fav beatle, everything effects everything, the diet the actor that played Lennon's killer is called 'master cleanse', I tried it for 6 days, it works, probably unhealthy but it works, lost 8 lbs in 6 days, why mention this? why not? it's more interesting than this paul is dead crap.

the proof of a double is different facial features pre & post 1966, different colored eyes, & difft heights. There is also evidence of right-handedness of Faul, difft musical style, & difft mannerisms. Photo-tampering has been shown & should raise a red flag.

All your claims are only existent in your fantasy, they have been debunked over and over and over again.

Yet you STILL ignore that...

Doesn't it question your believes about "facts" or "proof" that NOBODY ELSE is seeing them?? (exept your mommybird, who thought she was channeling the ghost of Paul himself?)

poor women..

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
The proof of a double is different facial features pre & post 1966, different colored eyes, & difft heights.

Again you forget this...

And this...

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Wally Hope]

This picture has some major discrepencies, especially the nose and ear in shape and size, and his lips are almost non existent even allowing for lips thinning over time.

I'd be interested if anyone's heard of other public people who were supposed to have been replaced (not just have a double) somewhere along their way. If it happened to Paul, it would reason he wasn't the only one. Problem is media control is so thorough and people don't like to read books...

Originally posted by kshaund
This picture has some major discrepencies, especially the nose and ear in shape and size, and his lips are almost non existent even allowing for lips thinning over time.

It's already been proven by forensic science that the features don't match up. Drawing some red lines on the photos & saying they "look" the same isn't very impressive compared to a biometrical analysis by forensic scientists. JMO

I'd be interested if anyone's heard of other public people who were supposed to have been replaced (not just have a double) somewhere along their way. If it happened to Paul, it would reason he wasn't the only one. Problem is media control is so thorough and people don't like to read books...

Indeed. This seems to have happened to other people. Here are 2 examples: Kim Jong Il & Howard Hughes.

N Korea's Kim died in 2003; replaced by lookalike, says Waseda professor
www.japantoday.com...

Kim Jong-Il 'died in 2003', says Japanese professor
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Aristotle Onassis infiltrated his own men into Hugh’s organization. In 1955, Hughes had obtained two doubles, one named L. Wayne Rector and the other Brooks Randie. In March, 1957 Onassis’ men at the Beverly Hills Hotel captured Howard Hughs using Hughs’ own disloyal men. Hughs was seriously hurt in the kidnapping. He may have been taken to Emerald Isle Hotel in the Bahamas. For a month, the captive Hughs was shot full of heroin, and then secretly transported to a cell on Onassis’ private island of Skorpios. Hughs’ two doubles stayed on under the pay of Onassis. One became Hughs, and the other became Hughs’ double. Computer programs which can duplicate signatures were used to provide Hugh’s signature. The computer and its program used for duplicating Hughs’ signature even became public knowledge when the Los Angeles Times had an article on 1/28/71 about a computer which had been programmed to write the signature of Hughes.....The date given for the actual Howard Hugh’s death, who had been kept prisoner under horrendous conditions by Onassis, was Apr. 18, 1971. In the previous year 1970, Hugh’s purported autobiography had come out written by Clifford Irving. Clifford Irving’s wife took the publisher’s check made out to Howard Hugh’s to one of Onassis’s Swiss banks, and was paid.

Springmeier/Wheeler, www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db

... In the absence of fingertips and DNA samples of the methodology used all'antropometria identification and, in particular, to craniometria, based on some specific points. In the face of anyone, unchangeable and codified by the French nell'Ottocento Paul Broca. What are these? In scientific terms we could not define the distance between the pupils, the intersection between the nose and arched sopraccigliari the point where the base of the nose is detached from the upper lip, the shape of the jaw and Regulation, the ear. Then there's the shape of the skull...

The first step is to then find and select images to be able to proportion the best photos for quality and range, and provide measurements and comparisons...

Two images pre'66, made a comparison and carried on a single scale of reference for making the same proportions, show a perfect coincidence of the main key points. In particular, the mandibular curve, ie the line that leads to the computer to define the perimeter of the lower face, say from ear to ear via the chin, is substantially identical. The margin of error is less than one percent. "For the perfect coincidence between two images is virtually impossible," says Gavazzeni, by convention it is considered acceptable at most 2.5 percent of difference. Beyond this limit, the divergence is such as to suggest the difference in identity between the two entities in question. Since in this case the spread is less than one percent, the problem does not arise: the two photos certainly depict the same person. " It was at this point to search for other photos with similar characteristics, but after the alleged "incident"...

That McCartney, certainly portrayed in the first half of 1967, was flanked by another picture, a few years later, taken between 1971 and 1972. The aim was to repeat the operation of comparison already made with images from the early sixties and then proceed with comparative findings from two groups of pictures. Again, the two new images is a good compatibility. It only remains to compare the image data prior to the date of the alleged incident and subsequent ones. "The surprise was great," says Gavazzeni: The mandibular curve between the two sets of photos showed a discrepancy of over 6 percent, well beyond the threshold of error. But there was more. Changed the development of the mandibular profile: before 1966 each side of the jaw is composed of two curves Net, since 1967 appears to be a single curve. There is therefore a curve morphological different...

Gabriella Carlesi adds an additional element: "Compared to the previous picture, that of Sgt Pepper's show clearly that the commessura lip, that is the line formed by the lips of the two, it was suddenly stretched. Which obviously is not possible and that the whiskers can not camouflage. In other words, the phenomenon is all too frequently these days, the lips can be inflated and increased in volume, but the width of the lip commessura can not vary that much. May be slight, but this is not the case for the photos examined: here the difference between the before and after is too strong to have been caused by any surgery. And more, always under the mustache of the McCartney Sgt Pepper's, maybe it was trying to hide something else: what the experts call it the nose-spinal or sottonasale. This is the point between the two nostrils where the nose begins to fall off the face: "This is also in this case a distinctive feature that medicine can not alter surgery. It can change the shape of the nose but not the nose-cord, "says Gabriella Carlesi. "And McCartney from the first group of photos and the second point that clearly varies...

The challenge was made intriguing, would go ahead because other important issues waiting to be examined. Starting with the one in which Gabriella Carlesi excel and for which enjoys international fame: dental identification. More McCartney sings and shows you smiling more Carlesi collects food items for his doubts: "To me the proof of evidence is the shape of the palate, yet more than the teeth." ...

There are impossible things and things that are possible but at the cost of operations long, painful and never perfect. Especially if done in the sixties. Now, careful examination of some pictures of McCartney before and after the 1966 autumn leaves, it must be said, in amazement: "First of all there is right upper canine," observes Carlesi Gabriella. "In the photos prior to 1966 is known as protruding relative to the line of teeth. It's the classic case of a tooth that lack of space it ends up misaligned, pushed out by the pressure of other teeth. It is curious that the same dogs in the photos from 1967 forward, but without ever protruding apparent reason: the images show that the space would have to be aligned with the neighboring teeth. It's like if you wanted to recreate is a detail in a mouth where quell'anomalia would have never been able to express. " The real crux of the reasoning of dental identification suggested by Gabriella Carlesi covers the whole palate of McCartney that before 1966, appears close to the point of justifying various misalignments of the teeth, although in less obvious forms of upper right canine. After the publication of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, however, the palates of McCartney widens considerably, to the point that the front teeth does not rotate on its axis more as before. With the only on, than the usual canine. "A change of the shape of the palate, Carlesi concludes, 'in the Sixties was not impossible but would be very traumatic, the result of an actual intervention maxillo-facial. In practice McCartney should have been subjected to an operation that would involve the opening of the suture palate, broken bone and then a long prosthetic and orthodontic treatment. In other words, for a change so sensitive in the sixties to McCartney would be required not only a particularly painful and bloody, but also the use of a fixed orthodontic multiband then, for over a year. Which would not have been possible to hide and would be obvious repercussions on the performance of a vocal professional singer. "But above all," concludes Gabriella Carlesi, "reasons that Paul McCartney might have to undergo such an ordeal?"...

Technically called trago. All we have two, one by ear, but the characteristics are different for every human being. "In Germany, a recognition procedure craniometrico, identification of the right ear even tantamount to fingerprint, ie the collection of fingerprints," recalls Carlesi. But what trago? It is the small cartilage covered with skin that overhangs the entrance to the ear and ear canal, like the whole ear, not be changed surgically. How then to explain the differences between the right ear of Paul McCartney in a previous snapshot to 1966 and probably a built in the late nineties? It is not only to betray trago a different conformation as well as other parts, just above the ear canal entrance, measurements and dell'antelice propeller. Things that ordinary mortals might seem irrelevant or unclear, but instead, every day, allowing the experts to locate and identify persons, bodies, photographs...

[edit on 5-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Okay, I'm pretty sure he said he chipped his tooth in a moped accident and had it fixed.

Anyway, here's an article in which he says he's not retiring. He also says that he's not dead. He certainly looked and sounded amazingly well in concert last Saturday night!

www.contactmusic.com...

More on how photos have been tampered with - for one, to make Faul's head seem rounder.

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
Fabio Gigante Andriola and Alessandra | 15 July 2009

... And the surprises do not end there because the relentless Gavazzeni, like a boxer who feels close the ko of the opponent, not the spring taken on the photo where McCartney, unaware, mentions a somewhat smug 'perplexed: "To the naked eye is known what will be a constant in the photos from that moment on, a couple of photo retouching fairly obvious to an expert eye. There is a gray area that covers the outside corner of left eye. Only for some time not seen before. And going to peep at that point, where for years there was one dark spot, now there is a cross between a scar and a sign of skin stretched like an aesthetic touch. The most immediate explanation is that probably, already in the sixties, has been made for an action on the eyes but it is still something imperfect, that for a long time has gone forward a mask. " Then there is a detail concerning the conformation of the skull: "Indeed, the impression is that the shape of the head was given a 'more rounded', Gavazzeni says:" So in the reduced effective length, by a trick used at the time and realized that being printed. Eff CTIVITIES change the conformation of the skull of an adult is something impossible. Yet, judging from the photos, is exactly what it shows...

/mw83db

Looks to me like the Sgt Pepper pic of Faul on the far right is a blend of Faul & Paul.


I'm not sure how they did it, but they could overlay negatives to blend images together by the early 1900's.

Originally posted by elfie
Okay, I'm pretty sure he said he chipped his tooth in a moped accident and had it fixed.

Paul chipped his tooth in a moped accident in Dec 1965. You can see it in the Rain & Paperback Writer videos.

He also says that he's not dead.

That's not the point. The point is someone has been pretending to be the original Paul for over 40 yrs.

star, and flag. This is a very news worth topic, and I think it merits much more investigation. I'd have to wonder how many celebrities, or powerful people have been replaced through the decades.

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones
star, and flag. This is a very news worth topic, and I think it merits much more investigation. I'd have to wonder how many celebrities, or powerful people have been replaced through the decades.

Yes, I agree.

Certainly there are people who think something is going on, and people who don't. That's fine, it's good that people see and understand things differently as diversity of opinions is, to me, a good and healthy thing.

Basically there are three camps.
Those that are certain Paul died.
Those that are certain that he didn't.
Those that are unsure.

I happen to be in the unsure camp (with a possible bias towards PID).
No explanation has been satisfactory enough for me yet, but in my mind something 'smells' enough to warrant further investigation.

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones
This is a very news worth topic, and I think it merits much more investigation. I'd have to wonder how many celebrities, or powerful people have been replaced through the decades.

Thanks & welcome to the thread, Sancho. I couldn't agree w/ you more about that. This is just the tip of the iceberg. If they could do it w/ Paul, then they could do it w/ anybody. How many people are going to scrutinize pics of ugly, old politicians? lol But anyway, just imagine the implications... Are people starting to see the magnitude of the mindf****?


[edit on 5-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]