Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by seaofgreen
OMG, they got John too!

Ignore the picture on the right for now, just look at the pic of John on the left, and the pic of his replacement in the middle:

The impostor has got such a beak! His nose is much wider than John's and has a definite hook at the end.
Now look at the shape of his chin and jaw -- no comparison at all, John had a round face.
Also, the impostor's eyebrow looks decidedly fake, his ears are much higher, and his cranium is larger than John's.

Finally, unlike John, his replacement dresses in an effeminate way -- see the pic on the right.

Case closed ;-)

Haha, great job!
I'm pretty sure they also took George...

Snowjob, I presented an alternative interpretation, nothing more. I did not negate or support either side of the PID issue, just presented an alternative interpretation of the evidence presented.

Paul went from more refined to less refined. "Manly" is subjective. I don't know why Paul would want to make himself less attractive... B/c the girls were certainly not impressed w/ his looks post 1966.

Less refined is subjective as well, yet people who have plastic surgery do so to repair a perceived flaw. While the work may appear to us, the general public, as worse, the flaw the individual perceived is gone. Michael Jackson is a perfect example of someone who had surgery to increase his attractiveness, in his eyes, yet failed miserably, in other's eyes.

Paul's "growth spurt" just happened to coincide w/ a change in eye color & change in facial features. To account for those changes, he would have had to have had a series of extensive & painful surgeries, but the requisite scars aren't to be seen. Neither was his singing career impacted, which is also extremely unlikely. This is according to forensic scientists, but the way.

People can grow over six inches in a year. I did not believe it possible until it happened to me as an adult after being told I had reached my full height. I am not saying it happened in this case, but am pointing out, while uncommon, it is possible and does happen. An acquaintance has added two inches to his height in his forties.

Except Paul's always looked brown or light brown, while Faul clearly has green eyes. Also, it's been documented that Paul had brown eyes, although he himself said hazel. Either way, that's not green. My eyes are green, & they will look blue, but they would never in a million years look brown or hazel. I understand no one wants to believe Paul was replaced, but I just don't think you can explain this away very easily:

Hazel eyes are notorious for "changing color". Someone very close to me has eyes which change color. The eyes, described as hazel by the person, have appeared everywhere from a medium gray to medium brown, but also included bright green, gold, "solid" brown, honey, and on rare occasions, blue. My own eyes, which I describe as brown, have been known to appear green hazel, honey hazel, orange, and in some instances red. Lighting , clothing color, and even room colors can enhance one shade or the other in both of us. The color has changed throughout my life and continues to do so, just as the person who has the hazel eyes.

The points made are not to negate yours, just to point out circumstances which can and do occur.

I see you offer no opinion on the possibility the "Paul death" references could have been metaphorical. My ex best friend is "dead" to me, yet she is very much alive and still doing horrible things to unsuspecting people. The person she was is dead and gone and the person she has become is nothing like the former.

If anything, the pictures have shown that at some point in the sixties, there were doubles being used, but celebrities still utilize lookalikes to distract. Britney Spears has been known to use several.

Just because there are pics of a man who certainly has different features, when scrutinized, does not mean anyone was killed in an accident or murdered. I feel there is proof of doubles utilized at some point, just not proof of the why and when that is proven, the how.

Here's another out there possibility. Do I believe it? No. Could it be possible? Yes.

Out there, but possible, theory: The real Paul had an incredible talent, but was shy. A lookalike was used to stand in in the Beatles early days, until Paul could become comfortable in the spotlight. When the real Paul was comfortable, the rumor was spread and they stopped touring to bring the real Paul in.

Possible.

[edit on 14/8/2009 by Ethera

[edit on 14/8/2009 by Ethera]

Originally posted by Locutis
Gotta tell ya, being a huge music fan, and stumbling upon this site and post, back in July, It caused me to signup at ATS. I read everything and looked at all the videos and pics, I am really impressed on both sides of the argument of PID and always thinking that when it comes to conspiracy theories, there is always some truth in them, somewhere. The time you guys put into the research is impressive. I have been back and forth when it comes to make a set conclusion. I lean more toward Paul being alive, but there are two things that stick out to me on PID, and that is his nose, and the change in The Beatles, music change and appearance's. Good post guys I have enjoyed it.

I guess this post throws my previous argument out the window, huh. The "does it matter", argument. If nothing else this issue brought a new member to ATS, so I guess that's something that changed.

I bow in defeat to the almighty faulconsnowjob.....


I'm feeling a bit goofy today, lol.

Let me recap the PIA'ers position. It seems to me that they are suggesting that Paul went through a series of extensive & painful surgeries to change his looks (never mind that the requisite scars aren't visible or that his singing wasn't impacted), his eye color changes b/c of either a rare eye condition or lighting, & he grew 2 inches again b/c of a rare condition or "camera angle" (even though the shots are straight on). Is that about right?

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
It seems to me that they are suggesting that Paul went through a series of extensive & painful surgeries to change his looks.

Only you have suggested this; you blot the matching pictures of Paul from your mind so completely that you forget that others can still see them.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Let me recap the PIA'ers position. It seems to me that they are suggesting that Paul went through a series of extensive & painful surgeries to change his looks (never mind that the requisite scars aren't visible or that his singing wasn't impacted), his eye color changes b/c of either a rare eye condition or lighting, & he grew 2 inches again b/c of a rare condition or "camera angle" (even though the shots are straight on). Is that about right?

I understand both positions. I also see you only refute certain points made.

There were obviously doubles, but other celebrities have, and still, use them. Does that prove the real Paul, as you say, was killed? If there were doubles, how can anyone know the one you claim was the real Paul wasn't a double anyway?

As I have stated before, I am not negating either side. I am neither PID nor PIA, as I see pics which support both sides. I simply look at all the evidence presented and asking questions based on alternative explanations and possibilities evidence from both sides could indicate. I remain objective and neutral.

Proving there are or were doubles does not prove a death or murder.

Originally posted by seaofgreen
you blot the matching pictures of Paul from your mind so completely that you forget that others can still see them.

They don't match - & that's been proven by forensic science.

Originally posted by Ethera

There were obviously doubles, but other celebrities have, and still, use them. Does that prove the real Paul, as you say, was killed?

No. As I've said before, all that can be proven is that Paul was replaced.

If there were doubles, how can anyone know the one you claim was the real Paul wasn't a double anyway?

There was one Paul up thru Aug 1966, then a different one - at least by Nov. 1966.


[edit on 14-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Yes, there are obviously two people who were paraded as Paul McCartney, yet who is to say the first Paul was the real one? What I am saying is, even though the facial structures point to at least two men standing in as Paul McCartney, there is no way to know the earlier Paul was the real one.

There are instances of performers singing and others being the "face". C&C Music Factory, Black Box, Milli Vanilli....

Originally posted by Ethera
I see you offer no opinion on the possibility the "Paul death" references could have been metaphorical.

I do think the references are about Paul's death. but I don't think the clues are "proof." I've noticed that most PID books or resources focus mainly on the clues, which are open to interpretation. Personally, I find the physical differences to be a lot more compelling.

Originally posted by Ethera
Yes, there are obviously two people who were paraded as Paul McCartney, yet who is to say the first Paul was the real one? What I am saying is, even though the facial structures point to at least two men standing in as Paul McCartney, there is no way to know the earlier Paul was the real one.

If people can see that there were 2 Pauls, then I have to be satisfied w/ that. Like I said, I know Paul is dead, but I can't prove it. The 1st Paul wrote some pretty incredible music - that was the real deal.

Originally posted by Locutis
Gotta tell ya, being a huge music fan, and stumbling upon this site and post, back in July, It caused me to signup at ATS. I read everything and looked at all the videos and pics, I am really impressed on both sides of the argument of PID and always thinking that when it comes to conspiracy theories, there is always some truth in them, somewhere.

Yes, I was thinking that when I 1st started looking into PID - that most rumors have an element of truth... But it's great that people are looking into PID. At least it's getting the attention it deserves.

[edit on 14-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by seaofgreen
you blot the matching pictures of Paul from your mind so completely that you forget that others can still see them.

They don't match - & that's been proven by forensic science.

All we've confirmed from the mismatching pictures (please stop posting them!) is that
* people can have different expressions on their face
* people are photographed at different angles and from different angles
* people are photographed under different lighting conditions (e.g. natural dull, natural sunny, studio light, bulb flash, electric flash, direct flash, bounced flash)
* photographs and video stills often receive XY distortion or flipping during the publishing or subsequent conversion process (e.g. PAL NTSC)
* published photos are often touched up to remove red-eye or eye-shine effects, or simply to make the subject appear more attractive
* people can lose puppy fat in their early twenties (look at Jane -- even more so than Paul)
* growing facial hair makes you look different
* changing hair style makes you look different
* people can gain/lose weight
* staying up all night in the recording studio and taking a load of drugs can leave you looking a little under the weather come the morning.

Finding pictures that don't match is easy -- it took me all of 2 seconds to find 2 pics of John looking distinctly different (see post above), however given all the legitimate reasons for photos to appear different, it proves nothing.

Finding pictures pairs suitable for comparison (i.e. that don't suffer from any of the above differences) is of course, less easy, but more conclusive. If you take a little care, you'll find there are there are plenty of pictures pairs that do match -- take for example the ones recently posted by Diablo on pages 63 & 66 of this thread.




[edit on 15-8-2009 by seaofgreen]

Your conclusions seem perfect to me.
The problem is that if someone wants only to pick uncomparable photos (for different light, expression, shooting angles, and so on, or even horrible stills from bad quality videos) and is convinced that they are different guys, instead of having a good look at all those tons of perfectly matching photos, it is useless to go on explaining. That person will only focus on what he/she wants to see.

Originally posted by magnolia_xx
That person will only focus on what he/she wants to see.

That could be said for those that believe it's the same person. In fact, that's their MO.

But how can PID people justify the fact that so many pics perfectly match?

They don't "perfectly" match.

Originally posted by SednaSon
They don't "perfectly" match.

Eight out of ten posters, who contributed to this thread, say they do.



Btw you'll never get a 'perfect' match unless you have pics that show the exact same facial expression, from the exact same angle, with the exact same lighting etc...The pics of John Lennon posted above should have given you a clue that people can look different in pics. But then I guess no one made up a JID hoax so it doesn't count...

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Eight out of ten posters, who contributed to this thread, say they do.

Btw you'll never get a 'perfect' match unless you have pics that show the exact same facial expression, from the exact same angle, with the exact same lighting etc...The pics of John Lennon posted above should have given you a clue that people can look different in pics. But then I guess no one made up a JID hoax so it doesn't count...

Wally, it seems that we (the 8 posters here) cannot see the light of the truth...
I honestly think that most of the pics match; sorry to those who think that there are no photos matching among pics before & after 1966, I think you have to rub your eyes a bit and have a good look again, with all the due respect.
And I think that if many photos match and a few don't match... well, then it is harder for PID people to justify this: because if Paul was replaced in 1966 (murdered by Illuminati or by mafia or by aliens, killed in a car crash, drowned in his bathtub, eaten alive by cannibals or whatever can be happened to this poor guy according to PID theory), it is obviously ridiculous that his lookalike's features mostly match and only sometimes don't match with pre-1966.
This suggests that some photos cannot be compared because they were taken from different angles or with different light conditions or compressed somehow by TV effects.
And PLEASE, PLEASE, PID supporters, don't come again and post all those horrible photos of Paul making faces like a gargoyle, or those grainy and compressed TV stills. Please have an honest and open-minded look to all the photos posted by PIA people.
Please.

www.youtube.com...

Paul McCartney was replaced.