+ Reply to Thread
Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst 1 6 16
Results 301 to 313 of 313

Thread: Paul McCartney really is Dead

  1. Link to Post #301
    Scotland Avalon Member greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Inverness-----Scotland
    Age
    74
    Posts
    9,803
    Thanks
    23,012
    Thanked 50,456 times in 8,498 posts

    Default Re: Paul McCartney really is Dead

    If you look for differences in the face you will see them.
    If you look for similarities you will find them---all light and shade.
    The lips the dimple on the chin the nose--at the very least similar.

    Chris
    A charity to help African Children become self sufficient. :attention:

    http://www.learningtoolsforselfdevelopment.co.uk/

    Be kind to all life, including your own, no matter what!!

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to greybeard For This Post:

    Star Mariner (2nd September 2019), T Smith (2nd September 2019)

  3. Link to Post #302
    Avalon Member T Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th January 2011
    Posts
    1,108
    Thanks
    5,977
    Thanked 4,649 times in 999 posts

    Default Re: Paul McCartney really is Dead

    Quote Posted by greybeard (here)
    If you look for differences in the face you will see them.
    If you look for similarities you will find them---all light and shade.
    The lips the dimple on the chin the nose--at the very least similar.

    Chris
    Agreed. Discerning facial features from varying photographs is an exercise of personal validation. I think we would all agree photographs do not provide evidence. I have to assume, however, forensic analysis applies a much more scientific approach that eliminates the subjectivity of the observer and unreliability of commercial computer software. In the case of the cited study, the evidence actually contradicts the subjectivity of the observers (the scientists conducting the study). To my knowledge, this study has never been debunked, which to my way of thinking would be very easy to do if it were flawed or fraudulent. Two other pillars of possible "hard" evidence stick out above the minutia of song lyrics, photographs, album covers, and personal anecdotes. They are:

    1. Paul McCartney's arrest and incarceration in Japan. According to "fictional" Memoirs, the reason so-called Paul McCartney was detained for nine days (seems a little odd for a celebrity of his status), is because biological Paul also had a criminal record in Japan from back in his days as a teen in the early sixties. The fingerprints of the man claiming to be Paul McCartney and the fingerprints of the real Paul McCartney did not match. The Japanese authorities were befuddled by the mystery on their hands and were left only to assume they had detained an imposter or impersonator not only smuggling cannabis, but one claiming to be Paul McCartney. Had all the records aligned, the Japanese government would have released him on bail; the only reason Paul McCartney was eventually released (nine days later) is because the British government intervened. Although this story would be very easy to bury and cover up, it seems to me a persistent researcher should be able to reasonably verify or debunk this claim.

    2. Paul McCartney's 1983 paternity court case. It is well documented that Paul McCartney had a teen-aged lover and fathered a child before he was famous. Years later, when the mother of his child dragged him to court for support, William Sheppard, aka Billy Shears, was forced to submit DNA to "prove" he was the biological father. Which of course he wasn't. The court (and the mother) were shocked. Every single bit of evidence, save for the DNA, indicated McCartney was the father, so much so that McCartney even paid out support to hush the imbroglio. In fact, the evidence was so damming, a separate charge arose some years later accusing McCartney of using a double to submit the DNA. Of course it is possible McCartney's accusers were not really his teen-aged lover and his biological daughter or he really did use a double. This, again, should be easy to reasonably determine, and from the little digging I've done, it stands to reason these women were actually his long-lost teened-aged lover and daughter. This is a very puzzling case indeed, until we factor in the seeming impossible, that the man claiming to be Paul McCartney isn't really Paul McCartney at all...in which case it all falls together and makes perfect sense.

    If I were a PID researcher, I would focus my efforts on getting to the hard evidence in these two cases, as just short of full disclosure, would serve to get to the core of what the hell is going on here....
    Last edited by T Smith; 2nd September 2019 at 14:50.

  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to T Smith For This Post:

    ClearWater (2nd September 2019), Deux Corbeaux (2nd September 2019), greybeard (2nd September 2019), Ivanhoe (28th September 2019), muxfolder (2nd September 2019), rogparan (2nd September 2019), Star Mariner (2nd September 2019)

  5. Link to Post #303
    United States Avalon Member Sammy's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th December 2011
    Location
    a lovely park bench
    Age
    62
    Posts
    5,161
    Thanks
    29,578
    Thanked 26,063 times in 4,810 posts

    Default Re: Paul McCartney really is Dead

    Surely there should be an ability to do various DNA tests that could add to the "for or against" arguments?

    If integrity was a primary leading trait for the class level "Paul" has attained, adding this form of proof (either way) to the mix would have been done (or would be soon done), yes?

    But this world is far too complicated and things like authenticity, integrity, honesty, natural transparency are almost non-existent at that level of the various sub divisions based on the (silly IMO, but very real) thing called "class."

    See, if "Paul" is the original Paul, "Paul" might have decided it simply increases all the things he feels he gains from this mystery.

    If "Paul" is actually William Shepherd, then I can see Faul making the same decision for much the same reason. We all know everyone loves a good mystery, yes? Why solve it?

    (Earth) Humans... you gotta love 'em, eh?
    Last edited by Sammy; 2nd September 2019 at 13:51.
    All the above is all and only my opinion - all subject to change and not meant to be true for anyone else regardless of how I phrase it.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sammy For This Post:

    Deux Corbeaux (2nd September 2019), T Smith (2nd September 2019)

  7. Link to Post #304
    Avalon Member T Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th January 2011
    Posts
    1,108
    Thanks
    5,977
    Thanked 4,649 times in 999 posts

    Default Re: Paul McCartney really is Dead

    Quote Posted by Sammy (here)
    Surely there should be an ability to do various DNA tests that could add to the "for or against" arguments?

    If integrity was a primary leading trait for the class level "Paul" has attained, adding this form of proof (either way) to the mix would have been done (or would be soon done), yes?

    But this world is far too complicated and things like authenticity, integrity, honesty, natural transparency are almost non-existent at that level of the various sub divisions based on the (silly IMO, but very real) thing called "class."

    See, if "Paul" is the original Paul, "Paul" might have decided it simply increases all the things he feels he gains from this mystery.

    If "Paul" is actually William Shepherd, then I can see Faul making the same decision for much the same reason. We all know everyone loves a good mystery, yes? Why solve it?

    (Earth) Humans... you gotta love 'em, eh?
    Yes. This could easily be proved one way or the other with DNA testing. Your analysis as to why it hasn't, one way or the other, is spot on in my estimation.

    Interestingly, this is also one reason why this will never be solved, contrary to information in Memoirs that hints at full disclosure after Paul McCartney passes. If the real Paul McCartney really did die (or was replaced) back in 1966, as claimed, it will go to the grave with William Sheppard. Why would MI5 and Tavistock and the various other social engineers and PTB who enabled and propagated this psyop finally admit to and enlighten the masses as to just how easy it was to dupe them only after Paul dies? That makes no sense. It may be part of their moral code to allow for some "soft" disclosure (like Memoirs), which allows for plausible deniability, but they would never out themselves outright. That puts way too big of a spot light on the social engineering capacity of PTB. Who knows? Replacing JPM may have just been a beta run for potentially replacing/cloning Presidents, Prime Ministers, and other important actors in the "management" class of we earth humans...
    Last edited by T Smith; 2nd September 2019 at 15:35.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to T Smith For This Post:

    Deux Corbeaux (2nd September 2019), Sammy (2nd September 2019), Star Mariner (2nd September 2019)

  9. Link to Post #305
    UK Avalon Member Star Mariner's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th November 2011
    Location
    Southwest UK
    Posts
    1,628
    Thanks
    8,757
    Thanked 10,364 times in 1,549 posts

    Default Re: Paul McCartney really is Dead

    Quote Posted by T Smith (here)
    Yes, those look like the same person to me as well. But they both look like like William Sheppard to me (not biological Paul). Do you have the source of the photo on the left and some way to verify the date?
    I was unable to discover exactly when that younger picture was taken, one reference was 1964, but I can't be certain. So more testing was required.

    I did that this afternoon with this same face-comparison software, to put it through its paces to see just how accurate or inaccurate it is. The results were interesting, and pretty conclusive for me. I began with a benchmark, comparing two different people. Paul McCartney and John Lennon.

    The software returns results as such:
    0: It means the same person with probability of 100%.
    1: It means the same person with probability of 80% to 100%.
    2: It means two different people with probability of 80% to 100%.
    3: It means two different people with probability of 100%.

    (Click for larger)
    Click image for larger version

Name:	paul-john_compare.jpg
Views:	18
Size:	202.0 KB
ID:	41492

    Result 3, 100% incongruity, meaning these two faces are not the same person, as it should be.

    Next, more samples of Paul McCartney. Again, it's difficult to put a precise date to the images. With this one, I can only say the first is from the early to mid 60s, compared with another in the late 60s.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	paulmccartney_compare_1964-1967_2.jpg
Views:	16
Size:	130.0 KB
ID:	41493

    Result 0, 100% match.

    This one below was conclusive. The first image is definitely the original Paul, circa early 1960s. The second is from 1969.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	paulmccartney_compare_1964-1969.jpg
Views:	15
Size:	172.2 KB
ID:	41497

    Result 0, 100% match.

    Here's another example of the software, comparing two quite disparate images of John Lennon, one from the mid 60s alongside one from the mid 70s. Anyone can tell at a glance that these are both John Lennon, even though the face is a different shape. In the 60s one, it appears longer, narrower. Also one is black and white, the other colour. In one he has much longer hair, but it compensates for that, as it does for shadow and for ageing. It still provides an accurate result.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	john_lennon_compare2.jpg
Views:	14
Size:	184.9 KB
ID:	41495

    Result 0, 100% match.

    Finally, to illustrate its level of sophistication, here's comparison of two images of two faces that are much alike, but are not the same person. In WWII the British Army employed a man by the name of M.E. Clifton to act as Montgomery's double - to confuse the Germans, particularly on deployments in North Africa. The operation was a success. They are strong lookalikes. But it didn't fool the software.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	general-montgomery-double-compare1.jpg
Views:	15
Size:	209.8 KB
ID:	41496

    Result 2, 80% match, the faces belong to two different people with 80%-100% probability.


    There are more images, more tests. But for some infuriating reason I can only post 5 pics in a post, so this is all I can show.

    This theory can't turn to photographic evidence to back it up. Visually, Paul McCartney has remained the same person through the years. As for the forensic analysis, which you say hasn't been debunked T Smith, it has to my knowledge at least been countered, and with a pertinent observation:

    "Whilst Carlesi is a specialist in craniometry and odontology, Gavazenni is actually a computer scientist with no special qualification in facial anthropology.

    Forensic science itself is somewhat of a misnomer, it is not a hard science but a highly subjective one heavily dependent on the interpretation of the individual specialist. Any high profile murder trial will have two teams of forensic experts testifying to often tangentially opposite conclusions based on the same evidence. Clearly, at least 50% of them must be wrong."
    source

    That same article makes a good number of highly reasonable counter-arguments, and cites this at the end, whether taken as read or not.

    In 1966, the year the first Paul is Dead whispers emerged, his contemporary Bob Dylan was at the centre of a very similar story that he had died in an horrific motorbike crash and replaced with a imposter less critical of US involvement in Vietnam.

    The origins of many of these rumours are obscure, if not a mix of garbled misreporting and chinese whispers then perhaps somebody's idea of a joke. And in almost all cases they quickly fizzled out after it became apparent the star in question was indeed alive and well.

    What sets Paul is Dead apart is how enduring it has proven to be, even today subject of hundreds of youtube videos and internet articles, many of them produced by people who weren't even born when the speculation first spread like wildfire through college campuses in 1969.

    Crucially, it also differs from most of the earlier rumours by having a very clear provenance. We can trace most of the Paul is Dead stories back to their source, and by doing see an obvious urban legend being constructed.

    The canonical version of the story, that during the recording of Sgt Pepper in late 1966 Paul McCartney died in a car crash and was replaced by a look-alike, was largely made up by a 21 year-old student journalist at Michigan University called Fred LaBour.

    LaBour had been amused by talk on local radio about supposed backward messages hidden on the Beatles records and decided, as a creative exercise, to run with the idea and spin out the whole incredible tale.

    Little did he know what he had intended to be a joke would become one of the greatest conspiracy fables of all time. Most of the purported facts in LaBour’s October 14th Michigan Daily news article weren't even rumours he heard, but things he simply invented to add more colour to his article.

    It was LaBour who devised the idea of a look-alike named William Campbell (Shepherd in other versions of the story) replacing McCartney, and LaBour who invented the much repeated idea that the Walrus, as in ‘The Walrus was Paul’ is a Greek symbol for death. Outside of the writer's imagination, it isn't.

    The young writer was astonished when his little spoof quickly exploded out of the confines of his student paper and started being covered as a serious story by national media giants like Time and Life. LaBour had inadvertently created a monster, which was now trampling its way around the global press.

    As the frenzy erupted, LaBour was invited onto the RKO TV special in which the theory was subjected to a mock trial led by lawyer F. Lee Bailey, but by this point he had become somewhat daunted by how his joke had seemingly taken on a life of its own.

    “I told Bailey during our pre-show meeting that I’d made the whole thing up”, LaBour told Michigan Today in 2009. “He sighed, and said, ‘Well, we have an hour of television to do. You’re going to have to go along with this.’ I said OK.”

    LaBour remains philosophical about the fact many of the things he’d made up as a college student 50 years ago are now reported on the internet as fact. “Like it or not, the rumor will be with us as long as the Beatles are with us.”

    All four of the Beatles repeatedly rubbished any idea that had put these secret references in their albums, putting it down to the overactive imagination of their fans. Paul himself still has to regularly field questions about whether he is dead or not, including an appearance on the Letterman Show in 2009 where he laughed off the theory as down to “the fame and the craziness”.

    Lennon, whose lyrics are central to many of the Paul is Dead theories, admitted on many occasions he was simply making it all up. “I threw the line in - the Walrus was Paul - just to confuse everybody a bit more”, he explained in a 1980 interview with Playboy. “I was having a laugh because there'd been so much gobbledygook about Pepper - play it backwards and you stand on your head and all that.”


    Scouse humour. You need to get it, in order to get it.

    I honestly believe there's nothing to this at all.
    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
    ~ Jimi Hendrix

  10. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Star Mariner For This Post:

    Deux Corbeaux (2nd September 2019), greybeard (2nd September 2019), Lyran.Sun (8th October 2019), muxfolder (2nd September 2019), Sammy (2nd September 2019), T Smith (2nd September 2019)

  11. Link to Post #306
    UK Avalon Member Star Mariner's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th November 2011
    Location
    Southwest UK
    Posts
    1,628
    Thanks
    8,757
    Thanked 10,364 times in 1,549 posts

    Default Re: Paul McCartney really is Dead

    Some interesting photo comparisons of McCartney here, each between 1964 and 1967. Can't embed however.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp7UGzr7Z5w

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO3OkMqdu8Q

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQvXnu-cEkY
    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
    ~ Jimi Hendrix

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Star Mariner For This Post:

    Sammy (2nd September 2019)

  13. Link to Post #307
    Scotland Avalon Member greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Inverness-----Scotland
    Age
    74
    Posts
    9,803
    Thanks
    23,012
    Thanked 50,456 times in 8,498 posts

    Default Re: Paul McCartney really is Dead

    Maybe we could start on "Elvis lives" now.
    I think Star Mariner really has the present topic covered.
    All respect due--the time taken to state the point that this just a conspiracy theory.
    The Beatles well known for their sense of humour.
    Chris
    A charity to help African Children become self sufficient. :attention:

    http://www.learningtoolsforselfdevelopment.co.uk/

    Be kind to all life, including your own, no matter what!!

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to greybeard For This Post:

    Sammy (5th September 2019), snoman (3rd September 2019), Star Mariner (2nd September 2019), T Smith (2nd September 2019)

  15. Link to Post #308
    Avalon Member T Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th January 2011
    Posts
    1,108
    Thanks
    5,977
    Thanked 4,649 times in 999 posts

    Default Re: Paul McCartney really is Dead

    Quote Posted by greybeard (here)
    Maybe we could start on "Elvis lives" now.
    I think Star Mariner really has the present topic covered.
    All respect due--the time taken to state the point that this just a conspiracy theory.
    The Beatles well known for their sense of humour.
    Chris
    At the end of the day, yes. There is not much more to discuss and it may indeed just be a "conspiracy theory". At this point we are going around and around hashing out the absurd without yielding too much more insight.

    I've been aware of this particular "conspiracy theory" (as much as I loath employing the term) for almost forty years now. I never gave it -- just like "Elvis lives" -- a second thought until evidence came to light in the context of mass mind control, which these days I don't dismiss so readily as I once did, summed up nicely in the article Star cites:

    "...There is, however, a far more sinister variation on the conspiracy theory. Is the continued cover-up about Paul’s death because it was a psyop of some kind, perhaps designed to steer our popular culture in a certain direction or shape young people's attitudes to drugs [among other things we know not what]?

    If that is the case then the abilities of the dark forces that create our reality are all encompassing. If they can replace prominent public figures and keep an airtight cover-up about it for 50 years, then it is a truly scary prospect as to what else they might be doing to manipulate our perceptions of the world."
    source

    Emphasis/insertion in brackets my own. The details and degrees of plausibility--whether they be a lifetime Paul McCartney imposter or an Elvis sighting in Vegas--are all secondary.

    Given what I know about these forces at play, it's much harder for me to dismiss its scope and influence on our collective understanding of reality, even when applied to the obvious. Whether or not these forces are at play in any significant way here or whether this is simply another "conspiracy theory" in the vein of the fully-intended context of the pejorative, we should do well to dismantle everything we think we already know and rebuild from there in a Descartesian way if our minds and perceptions are themselves an integral part of the psyop.

    Sometimes that can be an exasperating exercise...

    (That being said, let's not move on to Elvis Lives )
    Last edited by T Smith; 2nd September 2019 at 20:34.

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to T Smith For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (27th September 2019), Deux Corbeaux (3rd September 2019), greybeard (4th September 2019), Inaiá (28th September 2019), Sammy (5th September 2019), Star Mariner (2nd September 2019)

  17. Link to Post #309
    UK Avalon Member Star Mariner's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th November 2011
    Location
    Southwest UK
    Posts
    1,628
    Thanks
    8,757
    Thanked 10,364 times in 1,549 posts

    Default Re: Paul McCartney really is Dead

    I wouldn't be a bit surprised if these forces were, as you say, centrally involved with this Paul conspiracy, and many others, if not in pushing it out to sea in the first place, then keeping the wind in its sails all these years.

    If anything I understand is true, these co-called elites love to distract, confuse, bluff, and double bluff, with everything, so people hardly know what's up or down any more. A number of notable quotes that attest to this come to mind, chiefly Kissinger's:

    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
    ~ Jimi Hendrix

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Star Mariner For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (27th September 2019), Deux Corbeaux (3rd September 2019), Sammy (5th September 2019), T Smith (2nd September 2019)

  19. Link to Post #310
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    23rd September 2017
    Posts
    676
    Thanks
    64
    Thanked 2,352 times in 571 posts

    Default Re: Paul McCartney really is Dead

    Quote Posted by foxtastic (here)
    I just watched a new documentary that really got me thinking titled "Paul McCartney Really is dead". I'm 31 years old so I'm too young to remember when the story was big, a long time ago. It was a very interesting Doc, but I definitely don't believe everything in it (like most things, I take what feels right and leave the rest). This case in particular really has me "scratching my head". I always thought of Paul (Faul, fake Paul) as kinda of the more nefarious of the 4, but never thought that he might be a body double!!! I was wondering if any of the members have researched this topic before (especially some of the older members) , and if so what is your take on the story?

    I found a copy of the torrent on a fantastic search engine i discovered the other day concen.org. This is an engine that is primarily dedicated to conspiracy research, and i recommend everybody become a member.

    Thanks alot Dan
    He's not dead. I researched it, but have no more time for the subject. Suffice to say that if you start with a conclusion and work backwards to prove it, you can probably prove anything to the satisfaction of many people.

  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to TomKat For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (27th September 2019), greybeard (4th September 2019), James (27th September 2019), Sammy (5th September 2019), Slipstream (8th October 2019)

  21. Link to Post #311
    United States Avalon Member Sammy's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th December 2011
    Location
    a lovely park bench
    Age
    62
    Posts
    5,161
    Thanks
    29,578
    Thanked 26,063 times in 4,810 posts

    Default Re: Paul McCartney really is Dead

    I think he's alive... within Billy Shears!
    All the above is all and only my opinion - all subject to change and not meant to be true for anyone else regardless of how I phrase it.

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sammy For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (27th September 2019), T Smith (21st October 2019)

  23. Link to Post #312
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    24th September 2019
    Age
    35
    Posts
    198
    Thanks
    865
    Thanked 417 times in 138 posts

    Default Re: Paul McCartney really is Dead

    Last edited by Lyran.Sun; 8th October 2019 at 10:18.

  24. Link to Post #313
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th November 2012
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    3,982
    Thanked 8,840 times in 1,934 posts

    Default Re: Paul McCartney really is Dead

    People are assymetrical, particularly in the head and face area. And the more funny looking you are, the more likely you have more asymmetry. Take a look at pics of Marlena Dietrich taken using light and shadow to the greatest effect. Same with Greta Garbo. Part of their magic was knowing exactly how light shadow and the camera interacted with their facial characteristics. They looked quite different without all of these effects.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst 1 6 16

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts