Paul McCartney really is Dead

[Valerie Villars]

Here's the thing. I haven't finished watching the above video, but I did watch one on this thread a while back about which Bill said the idea seemed plausible. I always thought the whole Paul is dead thing was absolutely insane. But back then I didn't know a lot of things I know now.

However and to the point, this morning I got to the part in the video where it was discussed that the music and or musicians were talking to each other via their music. I think they bought up subliminal messages in the music. I don't know about that.

What I DO know is there is something called a green language; the language of the birds. I experienced it. It's something which can't be understood, until it's understood in one fell swoop. So that one part of the discussion caught my ear.

On the other hand, there is a lot of deception in this world. Conclusion; I just don't know. My main take away with the whole story is this world is deceptive and upside down and in that sense, it could very well be true.

[Bluegreen]

I don't know
Something about the ears
A musician friend says he wrote nothing but polkas after '68

:twitch:

[AriG]

What I DO know is there is something called a green language; the language of the birds. I experienced it. It's something which can't be understood, until it's understood in one fell swoop. So that one part of the discussion caught my ear.



Valerie,

(totally off topic)

As I sit here on my deck admist the woods, 30 feet up in the treetops, I am surrounded by about 20 hummingbirds, feeding furiously in preparation for their migration to Central America. I would really LOVE it if you could start a thread on this subject. I have been attempting to duplicate their high pitched squeaks and communicate and it may be working, as I just had one hover about a foot from my face in response. Please do share more about this subject on a separate thread. Thank you!

[Tintin]

@AriG: lovely idea :)

Hey, you could start it yourself, with that very post :highfive:

:focus:

[AriG]

@AriG: lovely idea :)

Hey, you could start it yourself, with that very post :highfive:

:focus:

I’d rather hear Valerie’s insights, but thank you! :focus:

[happyuk]

... A perfect example is a scene i became familiar with "the Grateful Dead tour scene". When I was younger I thought of it as "rebellion against the system", and this was very true for each individual, but it wasn't tell I'd grown up a little bit that I realized , "it was the system itself that was putting on the show." No matter how much I still love these bands, and the music I can't help thinking of them as "Pied Pipers".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsPCQ932vlU&feature=player_detailpage

You make a really important point there, about most us of being part of a wretched system, whether knowingly or unknowingly, willingly or unwillingly. I'd like to expand on this (in the full knowledge that I'm straying from the topic) if I may.

The so-called hippy, drop-out, new-age traveller any anyone else that thinks he lives an alternate lifestyle, whether he lives in an expensive trustafarian pad in London or run-down commune has not even began to drop out of anything.

He can wear his hair like an Comanche brave, grow the scruffiest beard and smoke dope until he is blue in the face, but he is still as much a part of the 'system' that he purports to hate as the director of any mega-corporation.

Ditto any man living on the 'social', or welfare, or whatever it is called these days.

If on the other hand, if he starts to produce at least some of his own food, make his own clothes, bake his own bread, brew his own beer, and any other things that he learns to do for himself, he is then on the path to freeing himself from the 'system' (or 'The Thing' as William Cobbett (1763-1835), author of Rural Rides and Cottage Economy put it).

Better still, (and a further step that many of us Avalonians want but really don't quite know how to get to yet) is when he becomes part of an integrated community that produces most of its material needs from it members work, so as to become near-as-damn-it independent for most of its materials - then he really getting there.

Soapbox sermon over, back to topic!

[Chester]

The latest from Mike Williams - Sage of Quay


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMrpVbRZkwk

[Bill Ryan]

And another video, from 2017:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXoCLyw_yaA

[pyrangello]

I watched this on the tv last night and James Corden asked Sir Paul about exactly this very topic, He did answer the claims and was very candid about where they came from. I tried to find that clip on this video but I need to re-watch the entire thing. In any event, what an enjoyable trip thru memory lane with a few suprises. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjvzCTqkBDQ ------------ 23 minutes long but worth the watch
Paul McCartney Carpool Karaoke

[greybeard]

I think a flat earth has more credibility than this story.
Chris

[Bill Ryan]

I think a flat earth has more credibility than this story.
Chris

Well, the 'Flat Earth' is trivial to debunk. In this case, there are actually many more serious questions to answer.

Here's just one:

In each of the two collage images below, the two on the top left are known for sure to be what researchers call 'Biological Paul', because of the early photo dates.

So who were all the others?

http://projectavalon.net/The_many_faces_of_Paul_McCartney_1.jpg

http://projectavalon.net/The_many_faces_of_Paul_McCartney_2.jpg

[snoman]

ah the pleasure of imagination augmented by intelligent argument based on plausible explanation.
the art of absconding from one paradigm to another.
quantum logic particles residing in two completely distinct narratives.
conspiracy as a balloon up to a fresh and exhilarating perspective.

this is a bit daft lol.


edit (just seen your post Bill.. they all look like the same person to me)

[greybeard]

Tongue in cheek.
If there wasn't a conspiracy there would be a need to invent one.
How many years ago was this!!!
Im not claiming to be right that the original Paul is here and now--I just think this is the case.

Chris

[happyuk]

This has been getting a grip on me in a slow-burning way.

Check out the video of the Fab Four from 1964 on the Ed Sullivan Show, specifically Paul McCartney's face at the 02:11 mark.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jenWdylTtzs

His nose is definitely different from that of the present day Paul. They say each of us has a doppelganger. Even Saddam Hussein utilized body doubles, even going so far as to employ the services of a German plastic surgeon (who had been struck off for abusing young boys) to make various minor surgical tweaks to nose, chin, eyes etc so that to all but the mosts closest of aides, there was no discernible differences between the two.

In the book, In the Shadow of Saddam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Shadow_of_Saddam), the author shows photographs of the real Saddam versus the lookalike, and it is still amusing to see that much of the TV footage you see of Saddam greeting audiences even now is not the real Saddam, but that of Mikhael Ramadan, an English teacher from Tikrit who had the misfortune to be 'invited' to become Saddam's body double due to his remarkable resemblance to the dictator.

[T Smith]

I’ve read through most of the posts on this thread and understand and empathize with those who believe this is a trivial conspiracy. As a Beatles fan, and not just a casual one, I grew up with the backward music, the hidden messages, the PID mythology. It was all interesting to think about but I never took any of it seriously. One might even argue Paul is Dead (PID) is the ultimate strawman to discredit serious conspiracies. Those arguments are convincing.

When George Harrison died and Joel Gilbert’s documentary came out, I was again intrigued but passed over any serious inquiry. It just didn’t resonate with me as anything worthy of critical analysis. The most compelling evidence, at the time, was desperate photos of Paul’s earlobes—and maybe the height differences--but even these curiosities are trivial. Maybe they were deep fake photos, or something other. I also never took any of the so-called album clues seriously. Clues left by the band members aren’t evidence. They are suggestions. And suggesting a look-alike could play left-handed base, who also sounded very much like Paul McCartney circa 1962 – 1966, and who was seemingly equally as talented (and who looked very much like Paul McCartney), wasn’t credible. In short, any explanation was more plausible than the suggestion the Beatles (or PTB) replaced Paul McCartney in 1966.

After revisiting the suggestion critically, however, and in much greater detail (and it gives me no joy to say so) there is little question in my mind Sir James Paul McCartney is not the Paul McCartney we all know and knew prior to the St. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album.

We humans tend to resist what does not fit our beliefs. This certainly is not easy to believe. The forensic evidence, however, is almost—if not-- irrefutable. So much so it bears repeating: Sir James Paul McCartney is not the Paul McCartney we all know and knew prior to the St. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album.

It would be redundant to list all the forensic evidence here (this thread alone contains most of the evidence, all of which can be verified), including DNA tests, complete forensic analysis of facial features that cannot be explained by surgical procedures, etc. That is not to say questions do not remain—they do. That is only to say the man (or men) the world knows as Sir James Paul McCartney, circa 1967 - 2019, is not the same man (or men) the Beatles started their band with. Another person (or entity) has assumed his identity.

That is as far as I’ll state with any authority; anything beyond that is only speculation, and I’m still working out the why and how of it. But in the context of the occult, and in the context of the highest echelons of the Illuminati, which is what I believe is really going on here, all the pieces do begin to fall together.

In other words, what happened to biological Paul McCartney on September 11, 1966 doesn’t necessarily need to make sense to us in a worldly way, in the same way we struggle to understand in a worldly way what really happened to us on September 11, 2001. (The dates are no doubt not coincidental). Sometimes events only make sense after we accept otherworldly and interdimensional forces at play. These are forces we cannot see, let alone understand with any degree of resolution. Only after stepping aback from the noise and seeming randomness of it all do we sometimes resolve a much more-fuzzy picture that elucidates world events flowing on a chillingly conscious and intelligent undercurrent. That current carries us hapless individuals on our way without too much say about it. Tapping into that intelligence (perhaps even directing or attempting to control it and even controlling individuals), for better or worse, is the modus operandi of MkUltra, the occult, Tavistock Institute, etc. This is nothing new, known and documented by many names, and most of us understand this force is very real.

If the Beatles were indeed a Tavistock project, i.e. if their handlers were all high-level masons, according to the Memoirs of Billy Shears (https://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-Billy-Shears-Nine-After/dp/1729545521/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=The+Memoirs+of+Billy+Shears&qid=1566336371&s=gateway&sr=8-1) (also hard to for me to believe as Beatles music and messages of love and peace seem an unlikely conduit for an effective social engineering program designed to usher in the NWO), and if biological Paul was compromised by mind-control., etc., the narrative of his groomed replacement—which biological Paul was supposedly a party to, becomes much more plausible.

Sad to say this conspiracy is no joke or some silly bit of backward messaging on vinyl.

[Deux Corbeaux]

I never believed the story about Paul being dead at the time, but reading through the thread and googling the name Billy Shears, I found this:

https://fictspedia.fandom.com/wiki/William_Campbell_Shears

William Campbell Shears

William Campbell Shears aka Billy Shears was an American country guitarist who was born in Shreveport, Louisiana on September 16th, 1940. Colonel Tom Parker, Elvis Presley's manager, discovered Shears on a talent scouting trip to Shreveport in 1958 after Elvis had been drafted in the Army. Shears was then put on the road in a variety of bands that toured the 'Chitlin Circuit'.

The American teen magazine Teen Beat and Dick Clark of the TV show "American Bandstand" held a contest for Beatle look-a-likes In 1965. No winners were announced, because this was done under the auspices of Brian Epstein, who was in search of Beatle stand ins for security purposes.

Colonel Tom Parker noticed a similarity in looks and immediately pitched Shears to Epstein as a Paul McCartney stand in.

Shears began working as a security double in 1966, along with doubles for Lennon, Harrison and Starr.

In 1966, Shears also did a short stint on a popular children's program, "Captain Space and Solar Sue" where he portrayed Astronaut Billy opposite Captain Space The Cat and his partner, Solar Sue. Not wishing to play second fiddle to a cat, Shears left the series after 3 episodes.

Paul McCartney's Mini Cooper was involved in a fatal accident on the M1 motorway outside London on November 9th, 1966.

Brian Epstein is then said to have bribed police and journalists to keep the crash under wraps, before persuading the remaining Beatles to stay together and accept a double as a replacement. William Campbell Shears became that replacement.

Paul’s death explained why the band stopped touring in 1966, as well as started growing beards, making it easier to disguise the necessary plastic surgery an imposter would have needed.

[Bill Ryan]

they all look like the same person to me

Well, explain this. :)

http://projectavalon.net/Two_faces_of_Paul_McCartney.jpg

[Hervé]

they all look like the same person to me

Well, explain this. :)

http://projectavalon.net/Two_faces_of_Paul_McCartney.jpg
It seems like an original asymmetry:



41436

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Never been able to get very far with this conspiracy. Yes there are interesting stories. Interesting photographs. Interesting inconsistencies. But I consider the inconsistencies in photographs I observe of myself, and my friends and family, when separated by years, and/or shot in different light, at different focal lengths, at different angles, by different lenses and cameras, and on different films at different speeds. But the subjects therein are all the same people.

I who know the subjects in such photos closely and personally would positively know if they'd at some point been replaced by an imposter. I'd know, and you'd know if it was your loved one. It wouldn't be suspicion or conspiracy, we'd instantly know. 100%. Then there's those who closely and personally know the replacement – they in turn would also positively know if they suddenly started impersonating the life of my loved one... It stretches credibility to the extreme to suggest this is what happened with McCartney, a mega pop-star of all things. It would not be possible, at all, to keep a lid on a swap of this fundamentally huge kind, a swap which would impact so many lives around both men (McCartney and Shears). As conjecture and suspicion (which is all this is) wouldn't last 50 minutes, let alone 50+ years.

At the end of the day, absent of an indisputable smoking gun, stories and photographs, symbolism and hearsay, doesn't cut it for me. One person just cannot be this alike another person, sing like them, play like them, talk like them (with perfect scouse accent), walk like them, act like them, be so faultlessly the same as them, for decades, and yet not be them, but someone else, entirely unrelated, from entirely another country.

To my eye, these two people, Paul McCartney and allegedly Billy Shears, are the same person. These are without doubt Paul McCartney, the same person.
https://i0.wp.com/tatoott1009.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/1966_comp2.jpg?fit=693%2C472&ssl=1

These cannot be two different people -- without a million other different people coming forward to say so and to prove it.

Given that The Beatles were, or at least became, a product of the Tavistock Institute, it's just as likely to me that this whole thing is a sham, a false bone of contention, a deliberate manipulation and setting-up of the conspiracy crowd – especially classic is all the occult crap thrown in, messages played backwards, "Paul is Dead", "666" et al – to study the reaction and evolution of this fiction, this fable, this modern tragedy, and to game it (and us) for the same purposes that these engineering programs game, mould, deflect, direct, and condition our every thought and perception. Or try to.

Maybe it began naturally. Maybe there was a car crash, and maybe there was a rumour, and 'they' seized an opportunity. Gave it legs, sustained it, embellished it. An experiment? Who knows. But this alternative, however out-there it sounds, but again given what we know of these programs, is still quite possible to me (and does seem a lot more likely).

[Bill Ryan]

In this short (6 mins) video, Mike Williams reads out a couple of e-mails he received. The first was from the friend of someone who was an electrician who'd had an assignment one day, back in the 1980s. It turned out to be for Paul McCartney.

When he arrived, Linda, apparently off-guard, addressed Paul as "Billy", and then when he entered the room, there was Paul playing his guitar right-handed.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEV3V5Jx76M

[greybeard]

We are debating and we really cant prove either point of view.
A right handed person playing left handed is no easy thing.
As said I suspect the original Paul is alive and well.
You can fool some of the people some of the time etc.
Chris

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Again, this is hearsay, Bill. I won't say it's impossible, I won't say anything's impossible (yes, even that bloody Q), it's just...very difficult to parse the enormity of what would need to be involved in swapping one person for another in this fashion.

To locate an exact physical replica of McCartney would be one vast miracle in itself, the other(s) are that that replica also happened to be a superb musician/songwriter in his own right, as if cut from the same identical mould; could (and did) slip into the Beatles musical canon without breaking sweat; looked and acted the same as McCartney and even spoke, permanently and without deviation, a spotless scouse accent. And finally, could (and did) fool McCartney's family, friends, associates, ex-colleagues, ex-schoolmates, ex-neighbours, literally everyone who had ever known and encountered McCartney as a private citizen. He fooled them, forever, as a complete imposter.

I just can't get there.

It is more likely to be a fake conspiracy theory for reasons stated in previous post. It may have been pure happenstance in the beginning, but snowballed into what it is today - a tabloid-fuelled sensation, not to be wondered at due to the nature of the beast that is the celebrity spotlight.

And maybe, the Fab Four just went along with it too, why wouldn't they? Especially if told to by their masters. "Let's milk it, fellas. From now on Paul is Billy..." Why not? It's hip, it's far out! They become the centre of an urban legend too. If nothing else, they create a scandal and get even bigger, sell even more records.

I'm playing devil's advocate here – I really have no idea what the actual truth is. But if it's true, it's really, really bizarre, and totally counter-intuitive (unless there's a psyop at work). Because why cover-up the death of this one celebrity singer/songwriter and replace him? There are a literal ton of other celebrity performers who were cut off in their prime, and well...after dying stayed dead.

[T Smith]

I who know the subjects in such photos closely and personally would positively know if they'd at some point been replaced by an imposter. I'd know, and you'd know if it was your loved one. It wouldn't be suspicion or conspiracy, we'd instantly know. 100%. Then there's those who closely and personally know the replacement – they in turn would also positively know if they suddenly started impersonating the life of my loved one... It stretches credibility to the extreme to suggest this is what happened with McCartney, a mega pop-star of all things. It would not be possible, at all, to keep a lid on a swap of this fundamentally huge kind, a swap which would impact so many lives around both men (McCartney and Shears). As conjecture and suspicion (which is all this is) wouldn't last 50 minutes, let alone 50+ years.



Yes, this is a perfectly rational explanation, and I agree with your reasoning. This very reasoning is why I never entertained the so-called evidence and also why I never took this conspiracy seriously. However, this may be a very complicated dynamic. According to Memoirs--which at some point will be proven to be either an astounding autobiographical account of William Sheppard assuming the lifetime role of Sir James Paul McCartney or the elaborate work of a trickster/profiteer capitalizing on a hoax (it is very well written, highly detailed with historical facts, and I highly recommend the read, regardless)--Paul McCartney privately announced his death beginning in 1965 to all his closest inner circle. He informed all (family, friends, colleagues) that a look-alike would assume his name and replace him in the band. Biblical imagery of Jesus/disciples almost comes to mind here. Paul was having reoccurring and haunting visions of his own death at the time and (remember this is the psychedelic era of mind-expansive drugs, LSD, etc., so all the people close to Paul--even the non believers--were somewhat open to these visions). In other words, biological Paul McCartney assumed the role of "seer" during this period and obsessed over his own death/replacement. When he allegedly did die on Sept. 11, 1966, just as he had augured (whether by accident or by murder), he essentially became a profit to believers/non-believers alike, including to John, George, and Ringo--the Stones, the Who, and all others who ran in the same circles. This event elevated Paul to something spiritual, something "other". This dynamic is all very intriguing and well documented with historical dates, facts, and compelling inside information, etc., in the Memoirs of Billy Shears.

Now: I'm not saying this is true or I buy any of this--all I'm doing is providing a possible explanation to counter your observations (and mine as before I was privy to these insights). It may be fantasy for all I know. But if true, it would certainly explain a sort of predictive programming to all in the know who may have otherwise rejected or exposed Paul's double, as you rightly observe (and actually serve as a collective psyop on the psychedelic movement at large).

I'm still not through the entire book (666 pages), so it's premature to say if I subscribe to this explanation, but what does makes sense to me, if true, is Paul was under mind-control experiments inflicted on him in the vein of MKUltra. These so-called "visions" were likely induced by Tavistock programming/drugs, etc., which then spread its tentacles outward and served as a larger psyop on the movers and shakers of the entire psychedelic movement. I don't buy the explanation in Memoirs that Paul McCartney was simply having "dreams" of his own demise and predicted his "replacement." Those thoughts were planted.

And seemingly executed....

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Thanks T Smith. I have to admit I haven't read that book, and maybe I should before drawing a final conclusion. But 666 pages, hah! Yeh, so that's a coincidence...

What a tangled web, good Lord.

[Deborah (ahamkara)]

Just an observation. John and Paul were extraordinarily close as young working class lads from Liverpool. John was quite physically tough and a total rebel rouser. I seem to remember he beat up Stu Sutcliff quite badly during their early days playing in Hamburg. Yet after 1966, John Lennon became a passive, troubled and haunted young man. He still had a quick wit, but his machismo faded.Yoko seems to have been brought in as a handler, and he was extraordinarily dependent on her emotionally. As a young girl, I loved the early Beatles, but was never a fan after Sgt. Pepper as the energy of the music shifted. I much preferred the Stones (probably another great story there...)

I feel like the Beatles were designed as an early test manipulating the power of media/music and celebrity. Whether Paul was replaced or not, there seems to be ample evidence that there was much more the the 60's music scene than met the eye. The Beatles were controlled to a great degree. It was not the carefree time many of us remember with nostalgia.

[happyuk]

I'm still not utterly convinced but this is a fascinating thread nonetheless. One other observation is how the Beatles went out with a bang in 1970 never to return. How many if any other mega successful bands do you see do that? Most continue to grind out progressively worse albums as the years go by instead of leaving us all in peace. Case in point : the Stones who haven't done a really decent album since the early seventies in Beggars Banquet.

[Mike]

it's utterly preposterous.

not only would the replacement have to be able to sing and play left handed bass (excellently by the way) and compose brilliant hit songs in the exact manner of the original Paul, he'd also have to walk the same, talk the same, sit the same, dress the same, be the same height, be the same weight, have the same eye color, and have all the same mannerisms as the original Paul.

not only would he have to be a virtuoso musician, he'd have to play exactly like Paul did.

and, on top of that, he'd have to be the world's most brilliant actor.

and, he'd have to have an inexhaustible, near god-like focus to play the character of Paul for 53 years without ever slipping up in public.

our greatest living actor is Daniel Day-Lewis. can you imagine him adopting a role for 53 years and never breaking character?

so here we have the world's greatest actor and musician all wrapped in one...and also one hell of a historian, because he'd have to memorize a library of biographical information on "original Paul".

and then, having done all that, he'd have to fool everyone around him...all the time. endlessly and without break.

stop a moment and think of all the people that Paul knew intimately back in 1966. he'd either have to:

A) fool all of them indefinitely
or
B) let them in on the thing and hope they didn't tell anyone.

are you f#cking serious???:bigsmile: if even one person could keep that a secret, it would be an enormous miracle!

When rich and famous people get older, they have plastic surgery. That's what they do! Especially former heart throbs with fading looks.:)

it's totally and completely nuts

[greybeard]

I think a flat earth has more credibility than this story.
Chris

Thanks Mike I totally agree.
Chris

[T Smith]

it's utterly preposterous.

not only would the replacement have to be able to sing and play left handed bass (excellently by the way) and compose brilliant hit songs in the exact manner of the original Paul, he'd also have to walk the same, talk the same, sit the same, dress the same, be the same height, be the same weight, have the same eye color, and have all the same mannerisms as the original Paul.

not only would he have to be a virtuoso musician, he'd have to play exactly like Paul did.

and, on top of that, he'd have to be the world's most brilliant actor.

and, he'd have to have an inexhaustible, near god-like focus to play the character of Paul for 53 years without ever slipping up in public.

our greatest living actor is Daniel Day-Lewis. can you imagine him adopting a role for 53 years and never breaking character?

so here we have the world's greatest actor and musician all wrapped in one...and also one hell of a historian, because he'd have to memorize a library of biographical information on "original Paul".

and then, having done all that, he'd have to fool everyone around him...all the time. endlessly and without break.

stop a moment and think of all the people that Paul knew intimately back in 1966. he'd either have to:

A) fool all of them indefinitely
or
B) let them in on the thing and hope they didn't tell anyone.

are you f#cking serious???:bigsmile: if even one person could keep that a secret, it would be an enormous miracle!

When rich and famous people get older, they have plastic surgery. That's what they do! Especially former heart throbs with fading looks.:)

it's totally and completely nuts

You're absolutely right, Mike. In the world you and I live in, this is utterly preposterous. So to reconcile the obvious conclusion that Sir James Paul McCartney circa 1967-2019 is the same Paul McCartney circa 1962-1966 (to agree that any other conclusion is completely nuts) we unfortunately open ourselves up to equally nutty questions. We have no choice but to embrace a concurrent narrative with our obvious conclusion. So maybe this discussion should shift to discover exactly what we are comfortable embracing if we also accept JPM is really JPM. I'll take a shot below:

If Paul McCartney is the same Paul McCartney, he is either a shape-shifting human (http://hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/FromOthers/Paul-McCartney-Italian.html) able to alter his DNA and constitution, including the color of his eyes and his height (to address your points above), or the research cited is flawed and/or fraudulent. I am not a forensic scientist, but this analysis seems pretty straight forward and suggests to me it would be dishonest for any observer to dismiss or deny the scientific analysis (interestingly, the authors and the researchers set out to debunk the myth once and for all and are seemingly uncomfortable publishing their findings. In an absolutely obvious sabotage attempt, they do a very bad job at "discrediting" themselves at the very end of the article, deliberately putting a turd in the punch bowl, so to speak, with their "Jew Conspiracy" angle. What an obvious hack-job of an otherwise very cogent analysis.

So let's move on: Are we okay with suggesting JPM is a shapeshifter? A reptile maybe? So far as I know no one has successfully debunked the debunkers or suggested the evidence is fraudulent. If JPM is JPM, what else explains this? We should discuss. I suppose we could put blinders on and comfort our rational minds and just deny this evidence exists. To my way of thinking, however, a belief system founded on cognitive dissonance, no matter how "rational" it appears on the surface, suggests a flawed belief system.

I want to be clear. I don't know exactly what is going on here. But another explanation that seems a little more plausible to me than the idea that JPM is a shapeshifter, believe or not, actually addresses all your questions in the tapestry of a compelling narrative written in the 1st Person, presumably by William Sheppard, aka Sir James Paul McCartney, The Memoirs of Billy Shears. (https://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-Billy-Shears-Nine-After/dp/1729545521/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=memoirs+of+billy+shears&qid=1566653401&s=gateway&sr=8-2). The narrative presents as a fictitious "disclosure" of the PID conspiracy. I'll leave it at that.

I will also reiterate what I've said in previous posts. I'm not saying Memoirs is true or I buy it, and I certainly do not buy all of it. All I'm saying is it provides a much more compelling explanation of the PID conspiracy than the notion that JPM might be a shapeshifting reptile. In addition, that I don't buy all of it only makes its premise (non-fiction disguised as fiction) more compelling. But even if Memoirs is nothing but clever fiction capitalizing on a ridiculous hoax--and it may be--it is still very good fiction, especially if you are a Beatles fan and are privy to and/or interested in Tavistock, social engineering, the Illuminati, and secret societies.

Whatever is going on here I'm left holding one--if only one--irrefutable conclusion. Sometimes the world isn't at all what it seems....

[ClearWater]

it's utterly preposterous.

not only would the replacement have to be able to sing and play left handed bass (excellently by the way) and compose brilliant hit songs in the exact manner of the original Paul, he'd also have to walk the same, talk the same, sit the same, dress the same, be the same height, be the same weight, have the same eye color, and have all the same mannerisms as the original Paul.

not only would he have to be a virtuoso musician, he'd have to play exactly like Paul did.

and, on top of that, he'd have to be the world's most brilliant actor.

and, he'd have to have an inexhaustible, near god-like focus to play the character of Paul for 53 years without ever slipping up in public.

our greatest living actor is Daniel Day-Lewis. can you imagine him adopting a role for 53 years and never breaking character?

so here we have the world's greatest actor and musician all wrapped in one...and also one hell of a historian, because he'd have to memorize a library of biographical information on "original Paul".

and then, having done all that, he'd have to fool everyone around him...all the time. endlessly and without break.

stop a moment and think of all the people that Paul knew intimately back in 1966. he'd either have to:

A) fool all of them indefinitely
or
B) let them in on the thing and hope they didn't tell anyone.

are you f#cking serious???:bigsmile: if even one person could keep that a secret, it would be an enormous miracle!

When rich and famous people get older, they have plastic surgery. That's what they do! Especially former heart throbs with fading looks.:)

it's totally and completely nuts

https://media3.giphy.com/media/ToMjGpKniGqRNLGBrhu/source.gif

[Bill Ryan]

When rich and famous people get older, they have plastic surgery. That's what they do! Especially former heart throbs with fading looks.:)

Yep! But plastic surgery can't change your height. :)

http://projectavalon.net/Paul_McCartney's_height.jpg

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

True, but as a photographer I can say that many things do change the height and appearance of a person in a picture, like the shooting-angle (very changeable results), and the focal length, whether their standing on elevated ground, or the posture etc. Not to mention shoes. In the above picture, on the left, Ringo has heels, Paul doesn't. That makes a difference.

In this modern picture, the height difference between Paul and Ringo is as it was in the 60s. Probably 2 or 3 inches.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/78/f1/5f/78f15f4a2a4b9a81be665bbfc399e5f3.jpg

[Deux Corbeaux]

Oh well, we can go on.....

Madonna Joins Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr for a Beatles Reunion ...


https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://imagesvc.meredithcorp.io/v3/mm/image?url%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fcdn-img.instyle.com%252Fsites%252Fdefault%252Ffiles%252Fstyles%252F684xflex%252Fpublic%252F1474036053%25 2F091616-starr-mccartney.jpg%253Fitok%253DRBCMuGZM%26w%3D400%26c%3Dsc%26poi%3Dface%26q%3D85&imgrefurl=https://www.instyle.com/news/madonna-paul-mccartney-ringo-starr-beatles-reunion-london&tbnid=PvXQItJ7n6WiCM&vet=1&docid=P5D1bOX2WoR0jM&w=400&h=624&q=paul+and+ringo+starr&hl=nl&source=sh/x/im

And here Ringo is even in the front.

https://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii604/heyokah8/C4EFF8B0-F70D-42AB-A163-9F11EF04B07C_zpsxbh82mk7.jpeg (https://s1262.photobucket.com/user/heyokah8/media/C4EFF8B0-F70D-42AB-A163-9F11EF04B07C_zpsxbh82mk7.jpeg.html)

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Something definitely weird going on, because according to this Ringo was way taller than any of them back in the day! :)

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR5QL9Slca81CI6Ro1-tOw2CIJUNRhSYIOGVviWeY3gy9j-l_Bq

In all seriousness, I think this means that height differences in photos aren't all that reliable, and can probably be dismissed as evidence.

[greybeard]

Paul McCartney Vocal Changes ('70, '76, '90, '02, '05, '13, '17) - Maybe I'm Amazed


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2mZUrjF10A

[Mike]

i love bizarre conspiracy theories. they don't even have to be particularly good ones. i once started a thread on the "hollow earth"!;)

i've enjoyed this thread, and some of the videos posted were also entertaining. i don't mean to sh!t all over it.

but...come on man!:) supposedly Paul died in a car wreck, right? then and there, there are already an endless array of folks who would definitely and potentially have been made aware of his death. passerby's, policemen, firemen (here in america anyway, firemen arrive at any accident like this), doctors, nurses, valet workers, paramedics, EMT's, receptionists, and anyone at the hospital visiting family and friends.

and after, all of Paul's friends and family. the Beatles themselves of course. and with everyone being nodes in a network, there is a strong potential for thousands upon thousands of people knowing about it, and therefore almost a zero % chance of it not being totally exposed somewhere along the way.

[Arcturian108]

If the powers that be could hide the demolition of three huge office towers in New York City on 9/11 for the past 18 years, "witnessed" by millions, then covering up the death of one person in the middle of the night on a dark road in Britain has got to be easy, especially if you have unlimited power, funds and a good motive.

[Mike]

If the powers that be could hide the demolition of three huge office towers in New York City on 9/11 for the past 18 years, "witnessed" by millions, then covering up the death of one person in the middle of the night on a dark road in Britain has got to be easy, especially if you have unlimited power, funds and a good motive.


well it depends what you mean by "covering up":)

if it just means to obfuscate the facts of the alleged car accident - like they did with the towers - that would be one thing. and yes, quite easy.

but to do all that and then find the perfect Paul impersonator within days of the event is an entirely different matter. and to have the impersonator live 53 years as Paul and never get caught, never accidentally expose himself, never slip up etc

you could take any data point - just one - and disprove the entire thing. For example, Paul's Mom was dead in 1966 but his Dad was very much alive.

Do you think his Dad wouldn't notice if his son was replaced with someone else? Or do you think he did know but happily went along with it? or was his Dad replaced too?;)

[greybeard]

Way back then I was playing in a band four nights a week doing covers of various hits.
It is incredibly hard to do a cover that really resembles the original.
Then try playing the guitar left handed instead and the piano and the bass guitar andsee where that gets you!!! not only that getting one song of takes days of practice.
The Beatles were on view 24/7 at that time.
If someone had come forward with evidence of this "story" they would have made a fortune.
All it would take is one close relative of any of the Beatles to come forward.
It was my time I was there so to speak.
People want to investigate, make a conspiracy out of anything --be the clever one to find out.
You can find proof of almost anything if you are so inclined.
Chris

[T Smith]

Do you think his Dad wouldn't notice if his son was replaced with someone else? Or do you think he did know but happily went along with it? or was his Dad replaced too?;)

The PID researchers (I was surprised to learn when I first began looking at this conspiracy critically how detailed and in depth some of the material actually is) contend a whole inner-circle of people are aware and complicit in the cover-up, including the McCartney family. There are obviously financial benefits for the family to keep their son's name alive and well in the flesh of one William Sheppard, aka Billy Shears, 1967 onward, but it still doesn't ring true to me that all those closest to Paul McCartney would remain complicit in the cover-up merely on the grounds of cui bono. Something else must be going on.

According to Memoirs biological Paul McCartney actually prepped all those closest to him in advance, including Jane Asher (girlfriend), of his death and replacement. This is where things get very bizarre if we are to subscribe. In other words, his parents, Jane Asher, and all those closest to Paul are in the know and complicit and aware--or at least informed--before Paul even dies. Billy Shears is then initiated into the family as their son by some bizarre rite before John, George, & Ringo are even in the know. The book doesn't go into this in too much detail or depth, but it is all implied. The rite is all secret-society level stuff, Skull & Bones, Bohemian Grove, etc., and even implies the spirit of biological Paul may be involved in whatever the hell is going on.

Again, I'm not taking this explanation to the bank or even standing by it, but if we must start on the premise that Paul McCartney was possibly replaced, as difficult as that presumption is, the narrative in Memoirs provides some explanation of the dynamic at play that would resolve some of these type of questions.

[T Smith]

If someone had come forward with evidence of this "story" they would have made a fortune.
All it would take is one close relative of any of the Beatles to come forward.



And the jailer man and Sailor Sam
Were searching everyone...

If you are a McCartney fan, you can check out the "fictitious" :) explanation here (https://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-Billy-Shears-Nine-After/dp/1729545521/ref=sr_1_1?crid=37HQ4J90PGD3S&keywords=the+memoirs+of+billy+shears&qid=1566719568&s=gateway&sprefix=the+memoirs+of+%2Caps%2C290&sr=8-1).

[Bill Ryan]

Here's a fun quasi-scientific experiment anyone reading this might do.

(I've not actually done this myself, as I don't have a Windows platform for the software. So this suggestion isn't front-loaded at all.)

Here are two photos of 'Paul, in 1966 and 1969. In my strong personal opinion, NO WAY is this the same person. :)

http://projectavalon.net/Paul_and_Faul--Paul.jpg

http://projectavalon.net/Paul_and_Faul--Faul.jpg

But let's see what happens when these two faces are progressed by software, by 53 years and 50 years respectively. And then compare the result with a real current photo of 'Sir Paul McCartney', here.

http://projectavalon.net/Sir_Paul_McCartney_2019.jpg

[Bill Ryan]

And another free online tool... lots of fun.

http://pictriev.com/fc.php

Only 69%. :) :facepalm:

http://projectavalon.net/Pictriev.gif

[Bill Ryan]

And look at this. If you toggle the button in the center of http://pictriev.com/fc.php to 'identity' (which asks a different question), here's the verdict.

http://projectavalon.net/Pictriev_identity.gif

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

I'll have a play with that Bill, but that bottom pic supposedly from '69, are we sure? From many pics I've seen, in '69 he had a moustache, sometimes beard and sideburns. He looks considerably older here, at least the wrinkles suggest so. He looks more like he did in the late 70s.

eg, from '76
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/ab/58/c8/ab58c8c5591028e1192cea318193ebf7.jpg

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Erk, I don't trust this tool. For a benchmark I tested it on John Lennon. It doesn't think it's the same person either.

41489

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

I found the source of that earlier 1969 picture, it's from his UK Singles Collection Album cover, 1978-1983. So I'd suspect that picture was taken somewhere inside that 5 year slot. With over a decade between the 2 pictures, it throws significant ageing into the mix. Time changes everyone. But to me, those two faces, the eyes, the nose, the lips, they look like the same person. Just my opinion though.

https://www.discjapan.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/paulmcc-2uk-singles3.jpg

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

To check again, I signed up to https://ip.rohamai.com/ face detection platform, which provides facial comparison software, text to speech, and more. Just to see what it said. I could input other examples, but these two images I found were really sharp and clear, and both shot from a similar angle, of McCartney in 1966 and 1974 respectively.

They came back as 100% the same person.

41490

If you take a moment to study the shape of the faces, that sweeping line where the nose merges with the right eyebrow, the 'pinch' on the left eye at its outer corner, the drooping right eye very slightly aslant, those lines under both eyes, the shape and body of the lips, the nose and nostrils, the chin, the way a thin patch of shadow falls against the jowl of his left cheek in both... it's all exactly identical. I don't think, even if they scoured the world for the very best, closest, doppelgänger to McCartney they could find, they would be this close (and prove to be brilliant musicians too, and talk and sing alike, etc). If the second image isn't really McCartney, it's a clone of him, simple as..

41491

[T Smith]

To check again, I signed up to https://ip.rohamai.com/ face detection platform, which provides facial comparison software, text to speech, and more. Just to see what it said. I could input other examples, but these two images I found were really sharp and clear, and both shot from a similar angle, of McCartney in 1966 and 1974 respectively.

They came back as 100% the same person.

41490

If you take a moment to study the shape of the faces, that sweeping line where the nose merges with the right eyebrow, the 'pinch' on the left eye at its outer corner, the drooping right eye very slightly aslant, those lines under both eyes, the shape and body of the lips, the nose and nostrils, the chin, the way a thin patch of shadow falls against the jowl of his left cheek in both... it's all exactly identical. I don't think, even if they scoured the world for the very best, closest, doppelgänger to McCartney they could find, they would be this close (and prove to be brilliant musicians too, and talk and sing alike, etc). If the second image isn't really McCartney, it's a clone of him, simple as..

41491

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?

[Chester]

If someone had come forward with evidence of this "story" they would have made a fortune.
All it would take is one close relative of any of the Beatles to come forward.



And the jailer man and Sailor Sam
Were searching everyone...

If you are a McCartney fan, you can check out the "fictitious" :) explanation here (https://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-Billy-Shears-Nine-After/dp/1729545521/ref=sr_1_1?crid=37HQ4J90PGD3S&keywords=the+memoirs+of+billy+shears&qid=1566719568&s=gateway&sprefix=the+memoirs+of+%2Caps%2C290&sr=8-1).

I just received my copy a few days ago and am barely into it... Too early to share impressions but trust me, I will.

[greybeard]

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

[T Smith]

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 (http://hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/FromOthers/Paul-McCartney-Italian.html) 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 (https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/paul-mccartney-is-released-from-a-tokyo-jail-and-deported-from-japan) 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 (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1552030/McCartney-fraud-charge-over-love-child.html) 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....

[Chester]

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?

[T Smith]

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...

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

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)
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.

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.

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.

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.

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 (http://hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/FromOthers/Paul-McCartney-Italian.html), which you say hasn't been debunked T Smith, it has to my knowledge at least been countered, and with a pertinent observation (https://theunredacted.com/paul-is-dead-turn-me-on-dead-man/):

"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 (https://theunredacted.com/paul-is-dead-turn-me-on-dead-man/)

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.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

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

[greybeard]

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

[T Smith]

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 (https://theunredacted.com/paul-is-dead-turn-me-on-dead-man/)

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_doubt) 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 :) )

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

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:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uRPiKKjMikI/hqdefault.jpg

[TomKat]

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.

[Chester]

I think he's alive... within Billy Shears!

[Lyran.Sun]

The Winged Beatle documentary
HbVwHz3WBKM

#Thebeatlesneverexisted

http://blackbag.gawker.com/the-fabricated-four-were-the-beatles-real-1696541700

mE76Llnt17g

The mysterious John Halliday pCOp5PgVaXQ

[AutumnW]

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.

[Kryztian]

:bump:

Have been looking for a translation of the Wired Italia article for year, and although this is not this not it, it seems like a good synopsis of the article with some of the backstory. And while the article seems trustworthy, I took exception to some of the very anti-semetic comments at the end, saying that this is a Jewish conspiracy.


I would definitely say there has been some illuminati tinkering here. All is definitely not as it seems. I had always dismissed this as a silly rumour (as I had been socially programmed to) but when you really bother to look into it, it is quite amazing to note how obvious it is....and thus how willing we are to simply accept the "truth" as it is dished out to us.

The following is an excerpt from a very interesting article:

The cover-story Chiedi chi era quel «Beatle» for the July 15 2009 issue of Wired Italia, the Italian edition of the US magazine Wired, describes the analysis of the McCartney conspiracy theory conducted by two Italians, Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni (the man and woman in the photo).
Their purpose for analyzing this conspiracy theory was to provide indisputable, scientific evidence that would put an end to the persistent rumors that Paul McCartney had died in a car accident in 1966. However, the results of their analysis surprised them. Instead of putting an end to the rumors, their analysis provides scientific evidence that the Paul McCartney of today is not the same man as the Paul McCartney prior to 1966.

By coincidence, on that same day that this article appeared in Italy, Paul McCartney was at the Ed Sullivan theater in New York City to appear on the David Letterman television show and to give a free, outdoor performance on top of the marquee of the Ed Sullivan theater. He and Letterman laughed about the silly rumor that Paul McCartney had died in 1966. We could interpret McCartney's appearance in New York City as an attempt to distract Americans from the publication of the Italian article, and to encourage Americans to laugh at the McCartney conspiracy theories.


more: http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/FromOthers/Paul-McCartney-Italian.html

[TomKat]

Until someone does a DNA comparison between Paul McCartney and his brother, the myth will live on. Correction: even IF a DNA test proves they're brothers, the myth will still live on, because people want to believe it.

[Kryztian]

Here are links to two more blog posts by Tina Foster, who has spent a decade researching this story of fake Paul, or "Faul" as he is often referred to, when people compare the pre and post 1966 versions:

#1 Her synopsis of Wired Italia's article Chiedi chi era quel «Beatle». She goes into the detail of the anomalies found by Gabriella Carlesi, a prominent Italian forensic pathologist. Also discusses Faul's DNA test to deflect a paternity suit.
Comment on CHIEDI CHI ERA QUELL BEATLE? / Ask Who Was the Beatle? (https://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2015/02/chiedi-chi-era-quell-beatle-comments-on.html)

#2 The Beatle's were becoming increasingly politicized and Paul became quite interested in the JFK Assassination. He met the Mark Lane, a New York state legislator and author of the best selling book "Rush to Judgement" which questioned the Kennedy Assassination. The book was going to become a movie and Paul was thinking about writing the music, which would have made the movie tremendously popular with Beatle's fans.
Paul McCartney (JPM) Hoped to Expose JFK Assassination Lies (https://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2013/11/jpm-hoped-to-expose-jfk-assassination.html)

Tina Foster is also about to publish her book "Plastic Macca: The Secret Death and Replacement of Beatle Paul McCartney." She is interviewed by by Michael W. Hall "The Paranormal Lawyer" in the video below. She present a new view of when and why Paul was killed. The most frequently heard explanation heard came from a mysterious audiotape the contains a voice that sounds like George Harrison, which relates a story of how Paul died in an auto accident and his agent and other replaced him with someone who just happened to sound like him. This may just be a "cover conspiracy story" to distract from the real one. That the plan to replace Paul with "Faul" was some time in the making the original, real Paul was probably last seen in performance in Seattle. It's quite a compelling story .
hjXjYmL9hY8

And of course, the message has to be embedded in a song. Per Foster it is:
De1LCQvbqV4
I haven't heard this song in decades until yesterday, when Onawah posted a video about the octopus in this post. (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?106567-Animals-are-Magical&p=1331259&viewfull=1#post1331259) There are always interesting synchronicities at work when you research conspiracies!

[TomKat]

For anyone who entertained the idea that Paul McCartney died in 1966, this interview will probably dispel that notion:

wT-FtdP-jdA

[Kryztian]

Paul McCartney Wired Auto complete “interview” of 2018

Note: The term “Paul McCartney I” refers to the person we know 1942 to some time in 1966, and “Paul McCartney II” refers to that public persona afterwards. You can decide if “I” and “II” are really the same person.


5Pf19jV1NYw

In 2018, Paul McCartney II did an “interview” for “Wired” based on questions generated from Google’s “auto complete” function, basically the most popular questions typed into Google searches. This “interview” may have had several objectives:



1) To answer frequently asked questions for his fans.

2) To promote his new album, Egypt Station, that had been released.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt_Station

3) To defuse and confuse some of the unresolved issues the believers in the PID (“Paul Is Dead”) conspiracy. This may not seem obvious if you don’t know what those issues are, but this is definitely a hidden subtext to the video.

I use the word “interview” in quotes because this is not McCartney II talking off the top of his head, but instead a well prepared and structured, or should I say “scripted” talk, with much sleight of hand to make it seem like his answers are all impromptu. He pulls a label off a board with questions, to make it look like he is seeing the question for the first time. Then, without pause, he gives his answers looking straight into the camera, without pauses, “umms” and “let me think” or any interjection like that. Although he is usually talking about the past, his eyes do not drift up or down much, as if he were trying to remember events and impressions. This is obviously a well planned and edited production. Just from the way his question boards magically appear in his hands, and then he is hands free again, you can see how much this video is edited.

McCartney II has been accused of telling stories that do not jive with his verifiable past history, or he just gets the chronology wrong and forgets when things happen. For example: he wasn’t even sure if he was Irish (his family had a rich, proud Irish heritage), he didn’t know the name of his father’s band. He claimed he was lent a guitar the first time he played with Lennon, but in fact he brought his own Zenith acoustic guitar. He claims he botched a guitar solo in 1957 and would never play lead guitar again, and yet he did play lead guitar on several songs including “Drive My Car” (1965), “Ticket to Ride” (1966) and “Paperback Writer” (1966). All the Beatles were in the same room when George Harrison lost his virginity in Hamburg, Germany in 1961, and when McCartney II was asked about the story he replied lukewarmly “I guess it’s true.” In 1984, McCartney II talked about how he was doing his first film score, forgetting that he did write the score for “The Family Way” in 1966. The are numerous discrepancies between the stories he told about which songs he wrote and which ones Lennon wrote, and where the inspiration for these songs came from. Many times he botched up the story about how the band was formed and how it evolved from a band Lennon had formed. And these are just a few of the many, many incidents where Paul McCartney II botched the details of the life that Paul McCartney lived. (See pages 142-169 in Tina Foster’s book “Plastic Macca).

The Wired interview addresses this issue extensively, but not in an obvious way, by asking Paul numerous “when” questions (starting at 2:05), and other questions about his past, and he can’t remember many details, both for events as McCartney I (before 1967) and as McCartney II (1967 and after). Each time he does this (at 2:05, 3:18, 4:15, 5:38, 14:50) he rambles on extensively about how he is not good with dates but you should ask his fans, because they know. Of course, this is a planned, rehearsed, edited, concise interview, and even if he memory of his life were that bad, someone in the studio could remind him “You were knighted in 1997" and he could simply state that, but instead he rambles on about his memory. I would say a good 2 minutes of the 15 minute interview is spent meandering on the topic of McCartney II’s bad memory, while the rest of the “interview” he addresses all the other topics in a concise, efficient manner.

Here are a few other ways in which this interview addresses the PID conspiracy theory:


At 0:38 he “is asked” why he was wearing an “OPP” badge on the cover of the Sargent Pepper album, although he does not mention the significance of this question to anyone familiar with PID. The badge he wears on the cover is not fully visible, and it might be read as “OPD”, the British abbreviation for “Officially Pronounced Dead” (similar to the American “DOA” for “Dead on Arrival”.) It was taken by many fans to be a clue that Paul had died - perhaps one of the other Beatles had placed in on his uniform. As it turns out, the last letter was a “P”, not a “D”, and it was the badge of the Ontario Provincial Police. In the “interview”, Paul never mentions that the badge was erroneously understood to be “OPD” or offers no insight as to where it came from and why it was there, but just another statement of his lack of knowledge. Why does he even address this issue?


At 3:30 he talks about the inspiration for the song “Yesterday”. In a May 1965 interview, McCartney I talked about being in Portugal:


I remember mulling over the tune 'Yesterday', and suddenly getting these little one-word openings to the verse. I started to develop the idea ... da-da da, yes-ter-day, sud-den-ly, fun-il-ly, mer-il-ly and Yes-ter-day, that's good. All my troubles seemed so far away. It's easy to rhyme those a's: say, nay, today, away, play, stay, there's a lot of rhymes and those fall in quite easily, so I gradually pieced it together from that journey. Sud-den-ly, and 'b' again, another easy rhyme: e, me, tree, flea, we, and I had the basis of it.

However, in 1968, McCartney II said the tune came to him without words, and the first time he added words to the tune, they were “scrambled eggs”. In 1984 he said that the tune came to him fully formed, wordlessly.

In this interview, McCartney II gives us the latter story again, but in a version not quite so contradictory to the 1965 version of the story.


Many advocates of the PID theory believe that Paul (and the rest of the Beatles) grew their hair out (head and facial hair) just as the McCartney II phase started. If there were a new McCartney and he was still getting extensive plastic surgery on his face, this would have helped conceal many of the scars and the parts of the face that had not yet been addressed in what would have been many operations. It was believed that McCartney II was wearing a mustache because the hair growth about his lip was not that thick, and it was proven that a company by the name of “Wig Creations”. In this “interview”, McCartney II confuses the issue by addressing the question if “he wears a wig”. (9:22)


After stating numerous times, how bad his memory is and that he defers to his fans for many of the details of his life, at 6:50 he talks about the discrepancy between his story and Ringo’s about meeting Elvis. In complete contradiction to the other incidents, Paul insists that his recollection of the even it better than Ringo Starr’s.


At 0:54 he talks about the inspiration of the song “Let It Be” and talks about a mystical experience where “his mother” visited him in a dream. This would be a truly mystical experience, and yet I have a hard time believing that is what is being related here. Instead of being in awe of this wonderful, healing apparition, he tries to write if off to his use of alcohol at the time. This looks like a poorly acted performance on his part.


If you don’t think this “interview” is 100% scripted, go to 1:50, where he knows ahead of time not to show the question and then puts forth a ham acting performance. Presumably, he is being asked about PID.



Although it is clearly not obvious, this interview is an attempt to “answer” many of the questions put out there by the PID conspiracy. I don’t think it succeeds, and if you look closely at it in the context of PID, it has nothing to offer.

[Kryztian]

Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni, forensic scientists, and conducted a biometrical analysis of Paul McCartney from ages both before and after 1966. While plastic surgery can alter many of the details of the face, one can not alter the shape and size of the cranium, and it is very difficult to alter the teeth. They were hoping to disprove the PID ("Paul Is Dead") conspiracy theory, but their scientific results proved something completely different. They published their results in the article " Chiedi chi era quel 'Beatle'" in the August 2009 Italian edition of Wired Magazine.

You can find a not very readable machine translation of the article here: https://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2010/01/forensic-science-proves-paul-was.html

You can find a good synopsis of the article here: https://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2015/02/chiedi-chi-era-quell-beatle-comments-on.html

The images below are from the magazine.

https://i.imgur.com/v9j8TUk.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/T3dVOWl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/lFnzHH0.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/R2A1F21.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/6hrqqJK.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/I9Oywdr.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ZkS18qE.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/JSN8zGh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/CVUCH7T.jpg

[Kryztian]

Mike asks some really good questions in this post (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1311592&viewfull=1#post1311592). I will try and address them as best I can.



not only would the replacement have to be able to sing and play left handed bass (excellently by the way)

Paul McCartney II, (I use "II" to refer to that person from 1967 onwards, the question is whether or not he is the same person as "McCartney I" from 1942 to some time in 1966) said he was not a great guitarist. He did once says he would not play lead guitar because he screwed up some solo work in the 1950's, "forgetting" that McCartney I played lead guitar on such songs as “Drive My Car”, “Ticket to Ride”and “Paperback Writer” (all 1965-66). The Beatles stopped touring in 1966 (he allegedly disappeared between August and November 1966) and only did studio recordings after that. The next time he was seen in concert playing a guitar was 1969 where he was on a roof top and hardly anyone could see who was even playing. The first time he was really seen publicly playing left handed guitar was in 1972 in a concert tour of "Wings", six years after his alleged replacement.

Six years is a lot of time to learn to place left handed guitar, and to do it to mediocre standards.


and compose brilliant hit songs in the exact manner of the original Paul,

I have a hard time believing the composer of “Yesterday” is the same person who wrote “Ebony and Ivory”.


he'd also have to ... be the same height,

McCartney II is about two inches taller. Madam Tussaud’s Wax musuem did wax figures from data compliled before 1966, and Paul is not the tallest Beatle. But he is now, two inches taller.


have the same eye color

That has change from brown to green.



and, on top of that, he'd have to be the world's most brilliant actor.


If he were that brilliant and had studied his role perfectly, there wouldn't be these conspiracy theories that have evidenced a different personality, a man who is often unsure of his own history, his families history, conflicting stories about the source of inspiration for his songs, etc.

As for being a full time actor, there are a lot of people who do this. Sadddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega both employed many doubles to impersonate them, many of whom have studies his habits, gestures and have had extensive plastic surgery to look like him. Let me guess these were not the best jobs in the world. Meanwhile, if you replace Paul McCartney, you are, full time, enjoying his wealth, fame, privilege and share it with none. If there are people who would take on the Hussein job, there are many who would take on this job.



he'd have to have an inexhaustible, near god-like focus to play the character of Paul for 53 years without ever slipping up in public.


In 1966, he really withdrew from the public. It wasn't until the 1980s that he began to do interviews again. At that point 15 years had passed and differences could be attributed to age. But he slipped MANY times.


...and also one hell of a historian, because he'd have to memorize a library of biographical information on "original Paul".

He's screwed up many times on this manner. Different stories about how he created songs. He wasn't even sure if his family was from Ireland, yet this was very much a part of their identity. In his 2018 Wired Magazine “Interview” he talks about how bad his memory and how his die hard fans know his life’s history better than he does himself.


he'd have to fool everyone around him...all the time. endlessly and without break.

stop a moment and think of all the people that Paul knew intimately back in 1966. he'd either have to:

A) fool all of them indefinitely
or
B) let them in on the thing and hope they didn't tell anyone.

That is the question with most conspiracies - many people would have to know and would have to remain silent. When you start looking at the JFK Assassination or 9/11, one realizes that these were large operations and many people would have to know at least bits and pieces of what happened.]

I think many people were told something like this: Paul died in a car crash, and millions of crazed fans would be distraught and some would commit suicide. The Beatles wanted to go on and they just happen to know someone who looks “just like Paul.” Would you go on with the cover up if you had known the real Paul? What if there were a financial incentive? What is you were threatened if you didn’t go along?

Look at the Manhattan Project in the 1940's - over a hundred thousand people participated in it and yet it was a complete surprise to the world when the atomic bomb was developed. Can secrets be kept and managed? Yes.


When rich and famous people get older, they have plastic surgery.
People also do it when they go into hiding, or need to change their identity.

[TomKat]

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

Yes, seek and you shall find. I wasted many hours on this years ago and concluded that the people promoting it were disingenuous. They'd show a picture of young Paul with his mouth and jaw closed, then show a picture old "Faul" with his jaw open and mouth closed, and say Faul's face was longer.

[DaveToo]

Paul must be dead because Jim Fetzer says so.
And Jim Fetzer never makes mistakes!

[Kryztian]

https://i.imgur.com/Sk4In35.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/XKoruOn.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/eL2i8Px.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/YMUueHs.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/Vp3K6Fs.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/Jq0kbFN.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/FmDEAhd.jpg

[DaveToo]

Sorry Kryztian I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of the photos.
They ALL look exactly like Paul to me.

Even the side-to-side photos which were trying desperately to make him look different. :)

[DaveToo]

[img]https://i.imgur.com/FmDEAhd.jpg


Let's take the last Paul/Faul photos just for fun.


The bridge of nose between eyes: a perfect match
Tip of nose: a perfect match
Curve of left nostril: a perfect match
Mustache hair stub locations: a perfect match
Upper lip curvature: a perfect match
Lower lip shape/curvature: a perfect match

Here is my absolute favorite though!
Two pock marks in skin to the left of nose: a perfect match!!! (Location, size, shape, depth)

[TomKat]

[img]https://i.imgur.com/FmDEAhd.jpg


Let's take the last Paul/Faul photos just for fun.


The bridge of nose between eyes: a perfect match
Tip of nose: a perfect match
Curve of left nostril: a perfect match
Mustache hair stub locations: a perfect match
Upper lip curvature: a perfect match
Lower lip shape/curvature: a perfect match

Here is my absolute favorite though!
Two pock marks in skin to the left of nose: a perfect match!!! (Location, size, shape, depth)

Thank you. Another part of the theory is that Faul's songs were written by a classical composer from Tavistock. As if any properly trained composer could do what Paul did.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

I explained in depth in my post here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1312642&viewfull=1#post1312642) why the Paul is dead is a 'junk conspiracy' like the flat earth, having quite as much evidence for it as the flat earth, i.e none AT ALL. I also demonstrated quantifiable evidence against the theory in the form of photo analysis (which it doesn't really require when simple common sense suffices) along with the explanation of how it came to be: a stunt, a practical joke for a college campus newspaper that went completely out of control.

I only go where the evidence leads, and it leads unquestionably, irrevocably to Paul is Paul and has always been Paul. I believe it is so that some people will believe literally anything if they hear it loud enough and long enough, and quite irrespective of actual evidence.

I could present the following picture. If this got shunted around long enough, with a few 'weird' anecdotes thrown in for good measure, adding the CIA and Mark Chapman and Yoko as a handler into the debate, etc, etc, it may grow legs and eventually who knows, some may start to actually believe it. I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

45987

[Kryztian]

Sorry Kryztian I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of the photos.
They ALL look exactly like Paul to me.



I did not post these as any kind of definitive proof, these are just images I had collected and felt were important to share. It would be more useful if these photos had dates them, since it is theorized that "Faul" (the McCartney from 1967 onwards) is alleged to have several plastic surgeries.

A few things I did find interesting in the above comparisons is the first one, where you notice Paul, pre September 1966 has brown eyes, but here seem to be blue or green. There are other post 1967 images that show that too.

Also, note how Paul, pre Sept '66 has his right eye brow arched high in several pictures but not afterwards.

Again, not definitive proof.

What can not be altered however is the shape of the head and the pallate, and some of the dental features. This is why I think the work of Gabriella Carlesi (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1406796&viewfull=1#post1406796) is a convincing piece of the puzzle.

[Kryztian]

I explained in depth in my post here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1312642&viewfull=1#post1312642) why the Paul is dead is a 'junk conspiracy' like the flat earth,

Yes, there is a lot of junk conspiracy surrounding Paul and a lot of hysteria (in this case known as "Beatlemania") as well. However, junk conspiracy doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any good evidence as well. In fact, if someone is pulling off a conspiracy, junk conspiracy is a welcome distraction which can help to conceal the real truth. There is plenty of junk conspiracy in the JFK assassination and the 9/11 coverup that get in the way of demonstrating the real truth. Undoubtedly, no conspiracy has more junk obscuring the truth than PID.


the explanation of how it came to be: a stunt, a practical joke for a college campus newspaper that went completely out of control.


The story did explode in college newspapers in the Fall of 1969, and then into the mainstream media in early November, but the rumor was already three years old then. The first college paper to publish it got the story from and underground music magazine from California (allegedly, there is no print copy known). Since rumors are a verbal phenomena and not put into print, there are few quotable texts to prove it. One is from Jay Marks, who wrote a book on 60's rock groups with Linda Eastman, who notice Paul at a party on Christmas Day 1966 and noticed he was avoided his long time girlfriend. He said he was told “Don’t you know? That’s not the boy she fell in love with. That’s his replacement. It’s all very hush hush you know.” Also, there is a small article in Beatles Monthly, February 1967, dismissing the "false rumors" that were rampant.


I only go where the evidence leads,

I agree 100% with that statement. I was never a Beatles fan and I have no need or desire to think that he was killed and replaced. Before I ever examined the "Paul Is Dead" conspiracy, I was convinced it was completely the product of mass hysteria and probably THE MOST LUDICROUS conspiracy theory out there. But new evidence led me else where. I am basing most of my ideas in the hard evidence found in Tina Foster's book "Plastic Macca" a small part of which summarizes the info in "Chiedi chi era quel 'Beatle (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1406796&viewfull=1#post1406796)'".

[Kryztian]

Another part of the theory is that Faul's songs were written by a classical composer from Tavistock. As if any properly trained composer could do what Paul did.

Theodor Adorno. He was more of a culture critic than composer. I've never heard any of his compositions, but I assume some of them are atonal, in the tradition of Arnold Schoenberg. The theory stems entirely from one person, John Coleman, who claims to be an ex MI-6 agent, who wrote the book on "The Committee of 300."

Article:
Theodor Adorno wrote all the Beatles’ songs as a Cultural Marxist assault on America. Possibly. (https://rocknerd.co.uk/2016/10/13/theodor-adorno-of-the-frankfurt-school-wrote-all-the-beatles-songs-as-a-cultural-marxist-assault-on-america-possibly/)

One thing I know about Adorno is that he hated the Beatles. He hated the idea that music could be used to drive people into any type of frenzy, especially large numbers of people, as was the case with Beatlemania.

[Journeyman]

Listen.

Do you want to know a secret?

Do you promise not to tell, the world?

I haven't read the entire thread...

However, on the offchance that no-one has posted Miles Mathis take on Paul yet I'll offer the following links:

Some interesting work around the idea of Paul's brother not being who were were told he was.... (http://mileswmathis.com/paul8.pdf)


As you will see, the Faul theorists were right about a lot of things. But I would say they missed the
most important facts. They missed the twins, to start with. And they missed that neither of them died.
Neither replaced the other. They have both been around all along, and still are.

Then there's the question of whether we were ever really talking about 4 working class boys (http://mileswmathis.com/macca.pdf)from Liverpool....

Finally, to finish off on a positive note, not only is Paul not dead, neither is John. (http://mileswmathis.com/lennon.pdf)

[TomKat]

Listen.

Do you want to know a secret?
Do you promise not to tell?


That's George, not Paul. But of course, George is alive too, eh? :-)

[DaveToo]

As you will see, the Faul theorists were right about a lot of things. But I would say they missed the
most important facts. They missed the twins, to start with. And they missed that neither of them died.
Neither replaced the other. They have both been around all along, and still are.

Then there's the question of whether we were ever really talking about 4 working class boys (http://mileswmathis.com/macca.pdf)from Liverpool....

Finally, to finish off on a positive note, not only is Paul not dead, neither is John. (http://mileswmathis.com/lennon.pdf)

Oh no!
Please don't go there. :)

I actually spent far more of my precious time looking through that .pdf you posted than I should have.

That guy Staycer is not even remotely close to a Lennon knock off!

But thanks for letting me know there is this Lennon conspiracy. I wouldn't have known otherwise.

[Journeyman]

Listen.

Do you want to know a secret?
Do you promise not to tell?


That's George, not Paul. But of course, George is alive too, eh? :-)

Wouldn't that be Something...

No, sadly, not heard that one. David Bowie yes, but not GH. :( Here's George roaming around Crackerbox Palace instead:

8Ac34Khe-fc



Oh no!
Please don't go there. :)

I actually spent far more of my precious time looking through that .pdf you posted than I should have.

That guy Staycer is not even remotely close to a Lennon knock off!

But thanks for letting me know there is this Lennon conspiracy. I wouldn't have known otherwise.

I've spent plenty of time on Miles's site :) He does his research and gets me thinking, regardless of whether I agree with his conclusions.

[TomKat]

Here's George roaming around Crackerbox Palace instead:


Yes, we have George admitting that "I was so young when I was born." That's code for ... whatever you want it to be! :-)

[DaveToo]

Listen.

Do you want to know a secret?
Do you promise not to tell?


That's George, not Paul. But of course, George is alive too, eh? :-)

Wouldn't that be Something...

No, sadly, not heard that one. David Bowie yes, but not GH. :( Here's George roaming around Crackerbox Palace instead:



Here's a little Somefing I recorded on guitar for your listening pleasure. :)

https://soundcloud.com/tastyfingers-trio/somefing

[Journeyman]

Listen.

Do you want to know a secret?
Do you promise not to tell?


That's George, not Paul. But of course, George is alive too, eh? :-)

Wouldn't that be Something...

No, sadly, not heard that one. David Bowie yes, but not GH. :( Here's George roaming around Crackerbox Palace instead:



Here's a little Somefing I recorded on guitar for your listening pleasure. :)

https://soundcloud.com/tastyfingers-trio/somefing

That is truly lovely! Beautifully arranged and played. Good job you used some reverb or I'd be wondering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Things_Must_Pass#cite_note-229) if George faked his death too :clapping:


May I ask what guitar you used?

[Kryztian]

Over thirty pages of Tina Foster's "Plastic Macca" is devoted too all the things that the person we know as "Paul McCartney" since 1967 has gotten wrong about the life of Paul McCartney that we knew up to 1966. There are many, many contradictory statement made about his background, his music activities, and where he got the inspiration for his songs.

Below is just one example - all the things the post 1966 Paul McCartney got wrong about the song "Yesterday" including a completely different story about how he went about composing the song.

https://i.imgur.com/YUYr4TB.jpg

[DaveToo]

Listen.

Do you want to know a secret?
Do you promise not to tell?


That's George, not Paul. But of course, George is alive too, eh? :-)

Wouldn't that be Something...

No, sadly, not heard that one. David Bowie yes, but not GH. :( Here's George roaming around Crackerbox Palace instead:



Here's a little Somefing I recorded on guitar for your listening pleasure. :)

https://soundcloud.com/tastyfingers-trio/somefing

That is truly lovely! Beautifully arranged and played. Good job you used some reverb or I'd be wondering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Things_Must_Pass#cite_note-229) if George faked his death too :clapping:


May I ask what guitar you used?

Thanks Journeyman I'm glad you liked it. :)
For this tune I used my Gibson SG (faded special).

[TomKat]

Below is just one example - all the things the post 1966 Paul McCartney got wrong about the song "Yesterday" including a completely different story about how he went about composing the song.

In the account just posted, there are no contradictions in the writing of Yesterday. In one account he mentions dreaming the melody. In the other he mentions writing the words. I'm old enough to know that at no time did Paul EVER claim he dreamt the words and the melody. So this Tina Foster person certainly has credibility issues, and I dismiss everything she says.

[DaveToo]

Over thirty pages of Tina Foster's "Plastic Macca" is devoted too all the things that the person we know as "Paul McCartney" since 1967 has gotten wrong about the life of Paul McCartney that we knew up to 1966. There are many, many contradictory statement made about his background, his music activities, and where he got the inspiration for his songs.

Below is just one example - all the things the post 1966 Paul McCartney got wrong about the song "Yesterday" including a completely different story about how he went about composing the song.




From the article you posted:

"... Incidentally, Faul seems to have forgotten those times 'he' played onstage alone."

Dr. Fauci also "seems to have forgotten" what he said; in his case, with respect to Covid-19, just over the past year alone!!
Multiple times he has contradicted himself over very basic guidelines and measures.

Should this be regarded as clear proof that what (sic) we are looking at now is his double, Dr. Pauci? ;)

[oz93666]

This is one of the most bizarre and long running of the so called conspiracy theories ..

It suggests that Paul died in a car accident in 1966 , and rather than tell the public , there was a cover up ... The winner of a Paul look alike contest , Billy Shears joined the band and continued there after in Paul's place...

The whole thing sounds highly improbable , but there is a great deal of evidence , mostly hints and suggestions in music and album covers , supposedly put out by the band , who wanted to let their fans know the truth ....

The Album which came after 1966 was Sgt. Peppers , and this is full of coded messages , which led many of their followers to believe this had happened . At the time many questions were asked in the media .... The messages ARE there , but the theory that band members were trying to get the truth out , in defiance of management , does not hold water ....

There was other evidence .." 2009 Wired Italia magazine article that featured an analysis by two forensic research consultants who compared selected photographs of McCartney taken before and after his alleged death by measuring features of the skull.[39] According to the scientists' findings, the man shown in the post-November 1966 images was not the same..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead

You may remember Paul was arrested on entry to Japan in 1980 , held for 10 days then deported , the official story is that this was for cannabis possession .. the rumor is that the reason he was held for so long was that his finger prints did not match those on record for the original Paul ....

I am not aware of any of the known truthers (AJ , DI etc) commenting on this issue , it's probably just too much of a sticky mess to be certain , one way or the other . And besides , we don't need their help , the data is all out there , and we can analyze it ourselves ....

The only thing I can be sure of ,after many many hours looking into this (10 years ago) , is that someone want's us to believe this happened ....

Andrew Bartzis , who claims access to the Akashic records has said Paul did die in 1966.

Karl Mollison Channeling Lennon said he didn't die . That it's just another typical , dis-info campaign by the controllers , engineered to spread confusion , distract truthers and make them look stupid to the public ... https://youtu.be/0-Q3S_fOPHE?t=2422

https://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/7-completely-legit-signs-paul-5262843

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f4/a3/74/f4a374f1185e855e02a8ce42fbfff0d3.jpghttps://i.dawn.com/primary/2017/01/587add12c2c91.jpg

[RunningDeer]

The Death of Paul McCartney (17 min)




Paul McCartney begins @ 5 min (https://youtu.be/YXKIk1Pzh4g?t=300).



June 6, 2022
REALITY CHECK (https://www.youtube.com/c/REALiTYCHeCK2019/videos)
www.jayweidner.com

First off is the Tartarian topic and then Paul McCartney.

Jay Weidner introduces us to two books ‘Memoirs of Billy Shears’ and ‘Billy’s Back’. These books are credited as being co-written by Sir Paul McCartney. They tell the tale of the death of Paul McCartney in 1966 and how Billy Shears became the new Paul McCartney.


YXKIk1Pzh4g

[pyrangello]

See For Yourself The World Of Clones And How You Can Tell The Difference! The World of Cloning Really Does Exist!
https://beforeitsnews.com/new-world-order/2022/06/see-for-yourself-the-world-of-clones-and-how-you-can-tell-the-difference-the-world-of-cloning-really-does-exist-11465.html

There is a segment in this documentary that is about Paul McCartney, they even show the guy thats living in his old house , looks just like him now. Pretty wild.

[RunningDeer]

See For Yourself The World Of Clones And How You Can Tell The Difference! The World of Cloning Really Does Exist!
https://beforeitsnews.com/new-world-order/2022/06/see-for-yourself-the-world-of-clones-and-how-you-can-tell-the-difference-the-world-of-cloning-really-does-exist-11465.html

There is a segment in this documentary that is about Paul McCartney, they even show the guy thats living in his old house , looks just like him now. Pretty wild.

Here are several of the vids and images in the next two posts.


See For Yourself The World Of Clones And How You Can Tell The Difference!
The World of Cloning Really Does Exist!



June 6, 2022
link (https://beforeitsnews.com/new-world-order/2022/06/see-for-yourself-the-world-of-clones-and-how-you-can-tell-the-difference-the-world-of-cloning-really-does-exist-11465.html)


https://i.imgur.com/Hu6TiD0.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/AyPtu3m.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/3RUcrRP.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/9r9Strs.jpg


¤=[Post Update]=¤

1:03:00
vx2xpz

¤=[Post Update]=¤

1:17:00
vvcvz7[/center]

[RunningDeer]

Continued (unable to fit in one post).

9 minutes
vgf5yr

¤=[Post Update]=¤

3:45 minutes
vtpqh1

[Delight]

I have an ongoing question.... The pics presented of "cloned" subjects are distinguished by the differences in structure SO how can they be clones which are identical (like twins are identical)?

There may well be doubles replacing originals? They would be absolutely indistinguishable if clones? I would actually be more interested in the vocal signature differences because they are never the same between people.

(Conclusion) “Our preliminary experimental results using a statistically inferential dichotomy model demonstrated that an individual’s voice print does indeed appear to be unique to the individual.”
Establishing the Uniqueness of the Human Voice for Security
Applications
Naresh P. Trilok, Sung-Hyuk Cha, and Charles C. Tappert (https://csis.pace.edu/~ctappert/srd2004/paper08.pdf)

[Kryztian]

The Death of Paul McCartney (17 min)




Paul McCartney begins @ 5 min (https://youtu.be/YXKIk1Pzh4g?t=300).



June 6, 2022
REALITY CHECK (https://www.youtube.com/c/REALiTYCHeCK2019/videos)
www.jayweidner.com

First off is the Tartarian topic and then Paul McCartney.

Jay Weidner introduces us to two books ‘Memoirs of Billy Shears’ and ‘Billy’s Back’. These books are credited as being co-written by Sir Paul McCartney. They tell the tale of the death of Paul McCartney in 1966 and how Billy Shears became the new Paul McCartney.


YXKIk1Pzh4g

There are three different versions of the McCartney death and replacement conspiracy. Unfortunately, Jay Weidner, and many others are on the wrong one.

1) "Paul Is Dead" - Not much theory behind it but it came with a big emotional freak out. The belief that Paul was either murdered or mysteriously died and that some authoritarian force was not going to tell the world. A lot of people spinning their LP records in reverse to listen for backwards hidden clues. There is even the idea that Capitol Records started this theory so that people would wear out their records and buy new ones. This theory raged from 1967 to 1969 and then just went away.

2) "Paul had an Accident" - In October or November 1967, Paul was driving home from the studio and it was raining heavily and he picked up a young woman who was stuck in the rain. When she realized she was in the car with her favorite Beatle, she freaked out. Both the heavy rain and the freakout caused Paul to have a deadly car crash. After a few days of mulling it over, the Beatles decided they would look for a replacement Paul. In some versions of this theory (e.g. Jay Weidner's), Brian Epstein was the force behind this plan because the Beatles were such a lucrative enterprise and they needed to go on. In others, it is an MI6 agent named "Maxwell" who was concerned that there would be mass suicides of grief stricken teen agers if they learned of Paul's death. (I am sure that the Deep State leadership saw out of control Beatles fans as "useless eaters" and would have been happy if they removed themselves from the living populace.)

3) Paul was terminated by the Deep State - murdered or taken some place where he would never be heard from again. In the Spring of 1967, the Beatles were visiting Japan and were asked what they would do if they had political power. They replied "Ban the bomb!" That would be the atomic bomb, and the message was well received there 22 years after Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Paul also became friends with Mark Lane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lane_(author)), who had written Rush to Judgement, a book questioning the JFK assassination, and it was in the process of being turned into a movie. Paul had offered to write the music for the movie. Paul said he wanted something in his legacy besides just being a Beatle - he wanted to wake people up.

https://i.imgur.com/Rtj5Kpc.jpg?1

The Beatles had unleashed powerful unruly social forces - and if you can imagine these forces being turned into anti-Nuke activists and JFK conspiracy theorists, you can imagine that there were people in the Pentagon, CIA, etc. that were very, very concerned and needed to take action. If you understand the Deep State and the power that the Beatles had over people, one can NOT imagine that the Deep State would fail to act on this matter. Paul was probably taken out in late August or early September 1967. It is possible that this happened even before their final concert in Candlestick Park, San Francisco, and that a replacement was used (there is almost no footage of this concert that has been made public.) It may be that the car crash theory was fabricated just to get the other Beatles to accept a replacement Paul (a.k.a. "Faul") . This last theory is laid out in great detail in Tina Foster's book "Plastic Macca (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1794563849)".

[DaveToo]

First off is the Tartarian topic and then Paul McCartney.

Jay Weidner introduces us to two books ‘Memoirs of Billy Shears’ and ‘Billy’s Back’. These books are credited as being co-written by Sir Paul McCartney. They tell the tale of the death of Paul McCartney in 1966 and how Billy Shears became the new Paul McCartney...


Bullocks!

If that woman walked up to him in court and immediately recognized that he wasn't Paul,
then we should also be able to recognize a Paul sub. But we don't!

This guy Jay is all over the map!
He goes on to say that Paul may not have died, just was replaced!
He says: "Begs the question, did Paul just go and retire somewhere?"

You can't have your cake and eat it too, Jay!
He either died or he didn't!

The fact that you are asking if he went somewhere and retired,
means you JUST DON'T KNOW what you are saying!

He talks (among many other things) that Faul is at least four inches taller than Paul.

Jay (and all Avaloners who are Fauling for this nonsense) have a look at the Get Back sessions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncEKLLm3D5Y)
(studio and rooftop) and you will notice, strangely, that Paul is the same height or a tad shorter than John.

The Get Back sessions were recorded in 1969, three years after Paul allegedly died.

Zero in at:
0:43
1:47

Faul must have had radical surgery on his legs, shaving off four plus inches. :sarcastic:

[DaveToo]

The Beatles had unleashed powerful unruly social forces - and if you can imagine these forces being turned into anti-Nuke activists and JFK conspiracy theorists, you can imagine that there were people in the Pentagon, CIA, etc. that were very, very concerned and needed to take action. If you understand the Deep State and the power that the Beatles had over people, one can NOT imagine that the Deep State would fail to act on this matter. Paul was probably taken out in late August or early September 1967. It is possible that this happened even before their final concert in Candlestick Park, San Francisco, and that a replacement was used (there is almost no footage of this concert that has been made public.) It may be that the car crash theory was fabricated just to get the other Beatles to accept a replacement Paul (a.k.a. "Faul") . This last theory is laid out in great detail in Tina Foster's book "Plastic Macca (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1794563849)".

All speculation with zero physical proof. :(

(See my post above)

[Mare]

This surely has to be one of the most ludicrous of all the conspiracy theories out there? How it’s still got ‘Wings’ I’ll never know. Pun fully intended by the way.

Find a look-a-like, ok fair enough. Then he has to play bass like McCartney, who was one of the most innovative bassists of the 60’s, not to mention guitar and piano. Then he has to keep writing hit records that are still being played on the radio to this day. The guy is 80 and still touring. His output is continuous and considerable. If the quality of his work had suddenly taken a nose-dive then maybe, but it didn’t.

John Lennon’s murder is far more suspicious and rarely gets a mention compared to Paul is Dead.

Sorry, not having it at all.

[Eric J (Viking)]

I understand how people feel about the latter Paul McCartney. I personally believe that he is a better song writer then the real Paul and don’t forget what he did with Wings, from nothing to world recognition from zero to hero by himself.

I have had contact with people in Liverpool that know the true story and imo he was replaced by another person back then.

Also don’t forget the interview with Heather which was damming in so many ways and the interview in America where he admitted his songs were better than the previous Paul.

Anyway further info here…a must read.

http://www.hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/FromOthers/Paul-McCartney-Italian.html?fbclid=IwAR2LpvBXm53pcjZtBjQKZ-3CHLhLVPyOnTZkt1lHbDYE1UcZcM_O_fvGP44

Viking

[eagle0027]

Interesting....i knew nothing of this.
Always thought the early beatles sucked instrumentally and that other bands like bad company should have had their limelite.
Our 60s highschool band was actually far better.
Thnx 4 posting

[Losus4]

Is John Halliday the real Paul McCartney? The resemblance between the two is pretty much identicle.

ApBTNDKoX6c

[DaveToo]

Is John Halliday the real Paul McCartney? The resemblance between the two is pretty much identicle.

ApBTNDKoX6c

No Paul McCartney is the real Paul McCartney. :)
The resemblance between the one is pretty much identicle. identical.

5Pf19jV1NYw

[9ideon]

Back in School, when there were still a small bit of good classes given, we had this Topic in Music class.

Outcome: The first real media/marketing stunt done by a band. Interest in the Beatles was fading at the time, this was a ploy to bring back People and get 'm interested again in the band. It worked, it worked so well that new Generations still dig it up and try to re-invent the wheel every single time this topic is brought up.

It was a very well thought through stunt, that's really all there is to it.

[DNA]

Back in School, when there were still a small bit of good classes given, we had this Topic in Music class.

Outcome: The first real media/marketing stunt done by a band. Interest in the Beatles was fading at the time, this was a ploy to bring back People and get 'm interested again in the band. It worked, it worked so well that new Generations still dig it up and try to re-invent the wheel every single time this topic is brought up.

It was a very well thought through stunt, that's really all there is to it.

Kind of an assuming arrogant take.
You'll pardon me if I disagree with you.

[DaveToo]

This is one of the most bizarre and long running of the so called conspiracy theories ..

It suggests that Paul died in a car accident in 1966 , and rather than tell the public , there was a cover up ... The winner of a Paul look alike contest , Billy Shears joined the band and continued there after in Paul's place...

The whole thing sounds highly improbable , but there is a great deal of evidence , mostly hints and suggestions in music and album covers , supposedly put out by the band , who wanted to let their fans know the truth ....



and there my friend lies the rub.

It is people like you and all over the world who assumed they wanted to let their fans know the truth.

I on the other hand don't assume anything.
Could it be, just possibly, that all the 'hints and suggestions' were meant to either drum up an amusing conspiracy theory, or were simply not hints or suggestions, but rather 'oddities' that were played up by people with lots of time on their hands and creative imaginations.

[TomKat]

hmmm if he is dead his new wife to be aint gonna get much fun,mind you ive heard necrophilia is all the rage in the upper echelons.... seriously folks he aint dead i saw him in liverpool 2 years ago, and although the voice was croaky the bass playing was amazing and typically Paul.these rumours were first scotched in 1968 when they appeared. Now if you had been talking about Bin Laden.........

He's dead, but pretending to still be alive. I'm sure some day he'll admit he's not really alive. :-)
I wasted too much time debunking this years ago, but I'm glad to let others waste their time, because I'm sure it helps Paul's profile with more Google searches.

[onawah]

That deserves a spot on the "You Must Laugh at Least Once a Day" thread. :rofl:
Someone should create a meme.



He's dead, but pretending to still be alive. I'm sure some day he'll admit he's not really alive. :-)

[9ideon]

Back in School, when there were still a small bit of good classes given, we had this Topic in Music class.

Outcome: The first real media/marketing stunt done by a band. Interest in the Beatles was fading at the time, this was a ploy to bring back People and get 'm interested again in the band. It worked, it worked so well that new Generations still dig it up and try to re-invent the wheel every single time this topic is brought up.

It was a very well thought through stunt, that's really all there is to it.

Kind of an assuming arrogant take.
You'll pardon me if I disagree with you.

Don't really care. It's been chewed out over and over again.

People who would actually do legwork on this iso mindlessly following every hopeful with a conspiracy up their sleeve might perhaps find some interviews etc in where this gets debunked by People involved.

But if you want to believe in fairy tales, go ahead, roll with this world changing conspiracy and be happy.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

People who would actually do legwork on this ..

I did do some legwork on this, a while ago. It didn't take long before this 'conspiracy' fell apart.

First a photographic analysis. primarily here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1312560&viewfull=1#post1312560), and here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1312642&viewfull=1#post1312642). Conclusion: Paul is Paul and always has been. Then I went back to the root of the story. It was, simply put, a pure invention, a prank for a college campus newspaper that spiralled out of control.


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... More (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1312642&viewfull=1#post1312642).

[9ideon]

People who would actually do legwork on this ..

I did do some legwork on this, a while ago. It didn't take long before this 'conspiracy' fell apart.

First a photographic analysis. primarily here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1312560&viewfull=1#post1312560), and here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1312642&viewfull=1#post1312642). Conclusion: Paul is Paul and always has been. Then I went back to the root of the story. It was, simply put, a pure invention, a prank for a college campus newspaper that spiralled out of control.


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... More (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1312642&viewfull=1#post1312642).

I took that class again the year after, I was really into it, a real mystery in Music class, you know, not watching Footloose for a change, lol. The amount of material they used is enormous, it took multiple albums too, very well done. One could argue that this might have been the 1st commercial Psy-op, it still works, lol. Best part was always the one where Paul fakes that US accent, priceless, I believe it was Lennon who lost the plot when he couldn't "shake" that American English.

But more importantly, People do not seem to realize how Big the Beatles were back then, if he would have died there could never have been a cover up, too many moving parts involved, besides, no death certificate anywhere.

Lennon did a song in where he kinda spilled the beans a little. In any case, personally the best conspiracy ever done, besides the anal probe one. Well and maybe Elvis and Kennedy, I should do one Thread on the Kennedy Bros, lol.

Impressive legwork btw.

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/sign/sign0173.gif

[DaveToo]

Lennon did a song in where he kinda spilled the beans a little. In any case, personally the best conspiracy ever done, besides the anal probe one. Well and maybe Elvis and Kennedy, I should do one Thread on the Kennedy Bros, lol.

Impressive legwork btw.

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/sign/sign0173.gif

I'll take the bait.

You actually think the official narrative about JFK is correct ???

[9ideon]

Lennon did a song in where he kinda spilled the beans a little. In any case, personally the best conspiracy ever done, besides the anal probe one. Well and maybe Elvis and Kennedy, I should do one Thread on the Kennedy Bros, lol.

Impressive legwork btw.

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/sign/sign0173.gif

I'll take the bait.

You actually think the official narrative about JFK is correct ???

No, they were both murdered for the same reason.

[norman]

Good Vibrations Podcast - 222 - Mike Williams - The Beatles Psy-Op (https://podbay.fm/p/good-vibrations-podcast/e/1664899682)
1 hour 22 minutes Posted Oct 4, 2022


SHOW NOTES
Mike Williams, better known as Safe of Quay, returns to the show to re-visit the subject of the Beatles, the most successful and influential music group of all time, actually being a Tavistock-created psy-op used to push social engineering agendas, rather than simply four young working-class lads from Liverpool who just happened, by pure chance, to make it big.

Mike recaps on his epic 4.5-hour 2020 presentation where he presented evidence that it was impossible for Lennon and McCartney to have written all the songs credited to them during a specific period in Beatles history. And if that can be proven to be the case for that period, it was most likely the case for the whole of their career.

Paul McCartney’s replacement by a character known as Billy Shears gets analysed. We also give some airtime to all the “celebrity” frauds and lifetime actors who have so revealed their true colours since early 2020.

Mike’s hub website giving access to all aspects of his work is at www.sageofquay.com (http://www.sageofquay.com/)



Alternative source:

Mixcloud (https://www.mixcloud.com/SageOfQuay/mike-williams-with-mark-devlin-the-beatles-conspiracy/?utm_source=notification&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=notification_new_upload&utm_content=html)

https://thumbnailer.mixcloud.com/unsafe/300x300/extaudio/a/f/e/4/95e3-5fea-4a26-a8b9-8a89aa582372

[Journeyman]

Good Vibrations Podcast - 222 - Mike Williams - The Beatles Psy-Op (https://podbay.fm/p/good-vibrations-podcast/e/1664899682)
1 hour 22 minutes Posted Oct 4, 2022


SHOW NOTES
Mike Williams, better known as Sage of Quay, returns to the show to re-visit the subject of the Beatles, the most successful and influential music group of all time, actually being a Tavistock-created psy-op used to push social engineering agendas, rather than simply four young working-class lads from Liverpool who just happened, by pure chance, to make it big.

Mike recaps on his epic 4.5-hour 2020 presentation where he presented evidence that it was impossible for Lennon and McCartney to have written all the songs credited to them during a specific period in Beatles history. And if that can be proven to be the case for that period, it was most likely the case for the whole of their career.

Paul McCartney’s replacement by a character known as Billy Shears gets analysed. We also give some airtime to all the “celebrity” frauds and lifetime actors who have so revealed their true colours since early 2020.

Mike’s hub website giving access to all aspects of his work is at www.sageofquay.com (http://www.sageofquay.com/)



Alternative source:

Mixcloud (https://www.mixcloud.com/SageOfQuay/mike-williams-with-mark-devlin-the-beatles-conspiracy/?utm_source=notification&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=notification_new_upload&utm_content=html)

https://thumbnailer.mixcloud.com/unsafe/300x300/extaudio/a/f/e/4/95e3-5fea-4a26-a8b9-8a89aa582372

You may find this of interest Norman:

https://pieceofmindful.com/2022/09/28/the-siren-song-of-sage-of-quay/

I posted it on Davetoo's (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?118324-Dead-or-Alive&p=1520980#post1520980)thread but probably more of relevance here. I think he makes a good argument.

and here's Mike William's response:

https://pieceofmindful.com/2022/10/07/sage-of-quay-mike-williams-responds/

and an interesting video response to Mike Williams from the comments on Piece of Mindful

v1hes0WFcUU

[norman]

I also find it very hard to believe Macca was switched. The musical continuity from before to afterwards is too seamless.

However, my early memories of the Beatles are so faint and childlike that they hardly count as a reference point. Most of my memories of him are from after 66 so I'm remembering the duplicate.

I've never liked him much, certainly my least favourite Beatle. My feelings have been gradually compounded as the best of the Beatles died off. I was gutted when John died and Paul just sounded like a press agent for 'murder corporation'. Same kind of thing again when George died. Ringo is more of a mystery but I think he's been tapped since his car crash. Paul is still here and completely nobbled as a SIR Paul. I go off stars pretty damn quick once the Queen sticks her badge on them.

My hunch right now is that it's best to apply the notion that comes from war. " If you're getting a lot of flack, you must be over the target". I suspect there really IS something nasty and secret about Paul that there is a noise campaign to drown out in the public mind.

This fairly obvious bogus 'conspiracy theory' may well be a deliberate distraction from something else we might find out about the guy.

I remember the first thing I learnt about black secrets. The really super secret stuff is hidden deep inside the regular secret stuff as a double layer and a near perfect decoy. Any forceful defencive activity can always be associated with the outer "shell" secret and that can even be thrown to the hounds like a chunk of meat if needs must, as long as the super secret escapes notice.

My sixth sense tells me that if I can catch a wif of a fake curiosity, as I do with this, there's a likely chance there's a real one hidden behind it.


My own 'position' on this stuff has hardly shifted since I wrote the above post in this same thread in 2011, except that in 2011 I said it was Paul that was the deep mystery. That was pre Dave McGowan (at least for me). I now think it's the origin and motivation for the entire post 50s cultural revolution that is the inner deep secret being obfuscated and 'theory polarised' by this type of debate.

Also somewhere earlier in this thread I voiced a question, I still have that lingering question. Why did Michael Jackson buy 'Northern Songs' ? It P'd off Paul and looking at subsequent events, it may have contributed to P'ing off even more dangerous people.

This swelling controversy is getting more and more irritating by the year, but I do believe there's an important secret (missing piece of the puzzle) hidden very deeply behind (or even inside) this fuzz ball argument. We may have had clues from it that needed to be smudged. The most striking was Paul's one legged ex wife's claims that Paul has a secret. I don't know what that could really mean, but it stood out, and it is distinctly excluded from this punch n Judy show.

[onawah]

Are there photos of Paul's ears compared to his alleged double's?
That's the best way to tell if they are one and the same or not.

[DaveToo]

Are there photos of Paul's ears compared to his alleged double's?
That's the best way to tell if they are one and the same or not.

They have photos up the wazoo of Paul and his alleged double, with and without ear comparisons.
They allege that Faul is a totally different height than Paul.

Well side-by-side photos of Paul and John show no difference in his height 'pre-accident' and 'post-accident'.
It's more difficult to have height surgery than ear surgery. :)

[Kryztian]

Are there photos of Paul's ears compared to his alleged double's?
That's the best way to tell if they are one and the same or not.

There is a lot that can be done with plastic surgery to change the facial structure, but ears are very hard to alter. At least they were back in the 1960s. The Beatles gave there penultimate concert in 1967, and then .... they all grew their hair way out, covering their ears. They did give one more concert, from the roof of Apple Studios in 1969.

Not really sure when "Paul" decided to cut his hair above his ears again or if there have been any comparisons of the ears to those from pre 1967 days.

[onawah]

Very easy to put lifts in shoes though, to appear taller.


Are there photos of Paul's ears compared to his alleged double's?
That's the best way to tell if they are one and the same or not.

They have photos up the wazoo of Paul and his alleged double, with and without ear comparisons.
They allege that Faul is a totally different height than Paul.

Well side-by-side photos of Paul and John show no difference in his height 'pre-accident' and 'post-accident'.
It's more difficult to have height surgery than ear surgery. :)

[DaveToo]

Very easy to put lifts in shoes though, to appear taller.


Sure it's easy, but not so easy when we're talking several inches (as contended).

Have a look at the photo above that says "Mike Williams with ...".
Paul is a little taller than John there, with all wearing pretty flat shoes.
Date the photo and use it as a reference point.

[onawah]

I think more than one photo would be required to come to a reasonable conclusion.


Very easy to put lifts in shoes though, to appear taller.


Sure it's easy, but not so easy when we're talking several inches (as contended).

Have a look at the photo above that says "Mike Williams with ...".
Paul is a little taller than John there, with all wearing pretty flat shoes.
Date the photo and use it as a reference point.

[DaveToo]

I think more than one photo would be required to come to a reasonable conclusion.


Here are a few, before and after his "death".

[Matthew]

... I now think it's the origin and motivation for the entire post 50s cultural revolution that is the inner deep secret being obfuscated and 'theory polarised' by this type of debate. ...

Yes I'm with you on this subject I thought you put it very nicely. I see the is he the same? Is he not the same? as a distraction, but I have no idea from what. Possibly this misdirection is active to protect a still living person, and I guess Paul. But I don't know. If it is a misdirection then I doubt we will find out what it's a misdirection from so easily. What rings out is that both the Beatles and Saville were into Crowley.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nifZdcK0XEQ/UscRYFv2wII/AAAAAAAADIc/UmG_tdnZ9uA/s1600/BeatlesButcher4.jpg

Is it the real Paul or a fake Paul? wut wait, ...scrap that, WTAF???

[DNA]

In order for this to have happened there would have had to have been more to it than record companies selling records and musicians making money.

Alphabet agencies would have to be in on it.

If alphabet agencies were involved it would make sense that there was an investment on that end in the message bring sent by the Beatles.

[Bill Ryan]

In order for this to have happened there would have had to have been more to it than record companies selling records and musicians making money.

Alphabet agencies would have to be in on it.

If alphabet agencies were involved it would make sense that there was an investment on that end in the message bring sent by the Beatles.This is very much the theme of a fascinating, wide-ranging new conversation between Mike Williams and Jay Weidner.

A lot of this is about The Beatles as a Tavistock creation (whatever they may have known about it at the time) — but a significant about is also about the replacement of Paul McCartney by someone who was taller, right-handed, and an even better musician.

(I understand that many profoundly doubt this, but I have to say that personally I'm pretty much convinced.)

The Beatles, Mind Control and the Culture Wars


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMSlq9sYrQc

[Matthew]

...someone who was taller, right-handed, and an even better musician. ...

The video is too long and my interest in this angle not as great, so I didn't watch the video, but I'm going to bite:

1) taller
2) right-handed
3) better musician

1) I've seen one compelling picture but that's it. Sure it's a good one but one is the operative word
2) Right handed is easier for left handed musicians, ambidexterity isn't far-fetched. Also I kept my off-hand as strong as my main hand as a hand-drummer, practicing so I could play either as my strong hand, and I've also played with left handed musicians
3) Me too, just as a regular joe; I get better, sometimes in dramatic spurts. But add in increasing fame, space as a musician, the pressure of fame, and the right environment, then my skill level might suddenly skyrocket. After I accidentally learnt to play keyboards from hand-drums it suddenly unlocked other instruments. I just like accelerated, it was an awesome rush

There is some good stuff here, but nowhere near enough to distract from their occult intertwining. I don't see 2 & 3 as any big deal.

[onawah]

I had a brief exchange with OrpheoTreshula on youtube chat after watching "The Beatles, Mind Control and the Culture Wars" https://youtube.com/watch?v=aMSlq9sYrQc
I wrote:
"That's an awfully big 'coincidence' that Crowley's alleged son Billy was such a close look-alike for Paul. Or was he just waiting in the wings for some reason until Paul was out of the way? Doesn't make sense."

OrpheoTreshula replied:

"You mean Paul was chosen to ... oh god... be the sacrifice and Billy was always the intended? Ouch. I hope you didn't mean that because I'm not thinking it."

There were a few physical characteristics noted in the video that differentiated Billy from Paul; one being a difference in height, one being different ears, and both are important differences.
But the fact remains that they both looked and sounded nearly identical (at least, to most people...).
That is simply too much of a "coincidence", not to mention the other connections between the two and the presence of Crowley in the mix, not to make arriving at unpleasant conclusions, or at least suspicious ones...logical.
So the substitution, if there was indeed one, appears rather ominous.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Just a question... and I'm posting this in peace. No rebuttal, no argument, we're sitting down having coffee (or for me, tea) and having a friendly chat. My question is, why/how is this still being believed? For me at least it is as glaringly fake as Elvis isn't dead.

I did a deep dive on Paul a while back. A serious deep dive over several days. I went over numerous articles, commentaries, testimonies going back 50+ years. A lengthy photo analysis of Paul was also conducted. Every single thing I found pointed to Paul being Paul and always being Paul. Everything also pointed to this story being pure invention - a prank (in the beginning). The origin of that prank was one Fred LaBour, Michigan University, 1966. More about that here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1312642&viewfull=1#post1312642).

The Paul is dead story actually ran on the back of another story, another prank, swirling around at the time, that Bob Dylan had been killed in a motorbike accident and replaced with a lookalike - one less critical of US involvement in Vietnam. Yes, seriously. That story faded away, but this one didn't. It went viral.

The Beatles were huge, in fact mega-huge as we all know, so it wasn't going away. It was too juicy. The press picked it up [of course they did - it's their job to pedal spurious tales as its sells newspapers]. Paul/Faul spread out, grew new shoots and began to grow tall and flourish. Fiction became hearsay...became history...became conspiracy theory. It took on a life of its own, and many many onlookers latched on, like barnacles - for profit, acclaim, or limelight. But all of them grifters.

I posit that if one is convinced Paul is an imposter they will invariably find reason to continue believing it - like finding a picture of Paul's earlobe that doesn't look quite right, etc. It's a form of confirmation bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), if I may. Because really, all the evidence, all the solid evidence that exists for this theory points to it squarely being to a hoax. And all the photographic 'anomalies' are easily explained away (which I did here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1311249&viewfull=1#post1311249), here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1311658&viewfull=1#post1311658), and finally here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1312642&viewfull=1#post1312642)).

Still having a friendly coffee here, still having a chat. No judgement, no jeering, just asking the question -

Why does traction on this still continue?

[42]

Just a question... and I'm posting this in peace. No rebuttal, no argument, we're sitting down having coffee (or for me, tea) and having a friendly chat. My question is, why/how is this still being believed? For me at least it is as glaringly fake as Elvis isn't dead.

I did a deep dive on Paul a while back. A serious deep dive over several days. I went over numerous articles, commentaries, testimonies going back 50+ years. A lengthy photo analysis of Paul was also conducted. Every single thing I found pointed to Paul being Paul and always being Paul. Everything also pointed to this story being pure invention - a prank (in the beginning). The origin of that prank was one Fred LaBour, Michigan University, 1966. More about that here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1312642&viewfull=1#post1312642).

The Paul is dead story actually ran on the back of another story, another prank, swirling around at the time, that Bob Dylan had been killed in a motorbike accident and replaced with a lookalike - one less critical of US involvement in Vietnam. Yes, seriously. That story faded away, but this one didn't. It went viral.

The Beatles were huge, in fact mega-huge as we all know, so it wasn't going away. It was too juicy. The press picked it up [of course they did - it's their job to pedal spurious tales as its sells newspapers]. Paul/Faul spread out, grew new shoots and began to grow tall and flourish. Fiction became hearsay...became history...became conspiracy theory. It took on a life of its own, and many many onlookers latched on, like barnacles - for profit, acclaim, or limelight. But all of them grifters.

I posit that if one is convinced Paul is an imposter they will invariably find reason to continue believing it - like finding a picture of Paul's earlobe that doesn't look quite right, etc. It's a form of confirmation bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), if I may. Because really, all the evidence, all the solid evidence that exists for this theory points to it squarely being to a hoax. And all the photographic 'anomalies' are easily explained away (which I did here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1311249&viewfull=1#post1311249), here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1311658&viewfull=1#post1311658), and finally here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1312642&viewfull=1#post1312642)).

Still having a friendly coffee here, still having a chat. No judgement, no jeering, just asking the question -

Why does traction on this still continue?

Just a peaceful response... in the words of Simon and Garfunkel, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" - The Faul theory is nonsense.

I was in the 4th row at a McCartney concert and as far as I'm concerned... He's Paul. A genius, one of the world's most important composers of modern music.

[Le Chat]

Personally, I'm 90% sure Paul is Paul.

However, that 10% niggles away wondering what, exactly, does Heather Mills know and has been legally forced to remain silent about?

[Journeyman]

Just a question... and I'm posting this in peace. No rebuttal, no argument, we're sitting down having coffee (or for me, tea) and having a friendly chat. My question is, why/how is this still being believed? For me at least it is as glaringly fake as Elvis isn't dead...

...Still having a friendly coffee here, still having a chat. No judgement, no jeering, just asking the question -

Why does traction on this still continue?

Hi Mark,

I think I kind of answered your question in a different thread, so rather than reposting it I'll just include a link: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?118324-Dead-or-Alive&p=1495164&viewfull=1#post1495164

I'll add that the attention people give this could also be seen in relation to the impact that the Beatles have had on our shared culture. It means if there is some deception at play then for many it will be very close to home and something they want to investigate. If someone starts saying the bass player from Herman's Hermit's died and was replaced, not many people would care, but the Beatles had an impact that few if any other public figures have had.

Finally, a point made well here: https://pieceofmindful.com/2022/09/28/the-siren-song-of-sage-of-quay/ it can be useful to examine a pheonomenon such as 'Paul is Dead' even if one doesn't buy into it...

[Hym]

Get a sample of their DNA, legally of course.

Test relatives and compare. Not difficult.

Paul McCartney or Billy Shears?

Barack Obama or Barry Marshal, son of his mentor Frank Marshal, the head of the communist party in Chicago?

And Madeline Albright didn't know of her true ancestry until later in her dark existence?

Excuse me if this has been posted elsewhere in this thread. I did not read much of the thread, but watching Mike Williams and Jay Weidner discuss what I've known since childhood about the control mechanisms of these medieval, modern societies with their lack of compassion and service to each other....I get the conversation in its deeper truths.

I see both of them as being very late to any discussion on truth, especially in media and film making, but it is good they are both up on it...to the best of their perceptions and their investigative abilities.


In addition, and more to my look at how I saw all of this growing up....

As a matter of those things that give us the curiosities which compel us, throughout our lifetimes, to question any and all things that come from outside sources, especially those things that have something to sell to us, I look back on my childhood and remember one of a series of games my siblings and I would play.

I don't know when we started doing it, but we would play this game of who could identify a commercial on t.v. the fastest. We all got so good at it that the advertiser and the product were often identified in a fraction of a second to 2-3 seconds at the most, and I was not as fast as the girls were even as I caught on with seemingly different clues than the ones they were seeing instantaneously.

Then, because that game became so easy, we started to make fun of the role playing that was being sold to us. That was the part I remember the most. Our interpretations of grown-ups was funny. It showed our individual personalities in the most hilarious ways, even as it was us over exaggerating the qualities of the actors in the commercials.

As long as we see the commercialism and the programming for what it is truly meant to sell, all it takes is watching less and less of commercial programming to not be so damn annoyed at even the first hint of some advertiser trying to affect our understanding of the world.

This also goes for anything else that was shown in a movie or a t.v. show that was being presented as a governmental, scientific or political truth. From our viewpoints it was all about selling something that could not be trusted, hence seeing the programming in everything presented, movies, music, art, professional athletics, and even amateur athletics, whereby common sense followed an easily recognizable pattern of selling something for some purpose other than enriching our lives.

I now see our own childish adaptations as being far reaching, even as they were intended to be a way of playfully coping with those things that were very dishonest and superficial, those exterior intrusions from a very shallow society. Maybe it was the cynicism we had that surrounded us that gave us a very natural way of coping about being so unnaturally programmed to be consumers. We were children. By our nature we not only coped, we protected ourselves from those things we knew that were so unhealthy, so unnatural.

[Kryztian]

Just a question... and I'm posting this in peace. No rebuttal, no argument, we're sitting down having coffee (or for me, tea) and having a friendly chat. My question is, why/how is this still being believed? For me at least it is as glaringly fake as Elvis isn't dead.


You are absolutely right to think this. There is so much utter garbage conspiracy in the "Paul Is Dead" and (sorry Bill) the Jay Weidner / Mike Williams video belongs in that trash heap. However, just because a conspiracy subject is filled with rubbish, doesn't mean that there isn't a diamond of truth underneath the rubbish. In fact, if you are a powerful cabal with lots of money and resources to shape public opinion, what better way to bury a real crime by generating a mound of utter garbage for truth seekers to have to sift through. One looks at the garbage stories generated by Corey Goode and many other frauds, phonies and charlatans. It is now perfectly clear that their information is just self serving garbage, but, does that imply then that there is no SSP? Or that there aren't any beings out there watching our civilization and maybe even interacting with us? Many of us here have worked to debunk people like Goode - that isn't because we are debunking all the claims of ufology. It is because we are trying to clear the garbage out of the way so that we have a better vision of what is really happening?

"Paul Is Dead" is probably the ultimate "garbage conspiracy". But it is also absolutely true - the person now known as Paul McCartney is an imposter who eventually learned to play guitar left handed, had much plastic surgery, eventually including his ear lobes. But even the name of the theory "Paul is Dead" is misleading. That fact that someone dies isn't a conspiracy. The question is how did they die: natural causes, accident, murder? Much of the garbage conspiracy pushes the idea that he was in a car accident - I think it is important to understand this theory, and it may have been a "cover conspiracy" (a fake story about "what happened" that is semi-conspiratorial to cover up a real conspiracy that was much more dark and dirty.) After spending a lot of time on this, I think the conspiracy should be called "Paul was Murdered" (by "The Deep State", "The Cabal", "The Illuminati" or what ever criminal entity you feel is trying to social engineer our reality.)

Forget, for a moment, all that you know about the "Paul Is Dead" topic. Forget about the backward playing songs, the claims about different height, etc. Consider these things:


There are entities/organizations that are secretly trying to manipulate our media, including Hollywood and the popular music industry, to shape humanity and it's values and beliefs, to accomplish some sinister goals. Just one example is how we see that in the 1960's the CIA had purchased the world's supply of LSD and then started introducing it to the rock musicians in the Laurel Canyon area. Among other things, it was a way to marginalize and neuter an influential community (musicians) that were shaping societal values against the Vietnam War, and a lot of other social and economic injustices. (This point would be controversial most places, but here on Avalon most would see this as a self evident truth.)


Of all the celebrity sensations that ever existed, there was nothing that compared to "Beatlemania". The Beatles were known around the world had millions and millions of fans and some of them hysterical. Crowds of out-of-control fans overran barricades and by passed the police. When the Beatles came to New York city fans caused traffic jams and two women stood at the edge of a building and threatened to jump if they were not allowed to meet the Beatles. If the Beatles had wanted to start a political movement, they would have instantly had a world wide following like nothing that was ever seen before.


In June 1966 the Beatles visited Japan. They gave a group interview to the Japanese media where this exchange took place:


Q: "You have attained sufficient honor and wealth. Are you happy?"

JOHN: "Yes."

Q: "And what do you seek next?"

JOHN: "Peace."

(laughter)
PAUL AND JOHN: "Peace."

PAUL: "Ban the bomb."

JOHN: "Ban the bomb, yeah."


Also in 1966, Paul McCarthney met Mark Lane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lane_(author)), an attorney, former NY state legislator and JFK Assassination conspiracy theorist. Lane was finishing up his book "Rush to Judgement" which questioned the Warren Commission's investigation of the Assassination. (Lane's book would later spend 29 weeks on the NY Times best seller's list, and would take the #1 spot.) Paul asked to read the manuscript (https://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2013/11/jpm-hoped-to-expose-jfk-assassination.html) and when he met Lane later, he heard that the book would be turned into a documentary and he offered to write music for it "as a present". The film producer nixed the idea, but one can only wonder how much more popular the movie would have been and how many people would have questioned the official narrative on the JFK assassination if McCartney had taken part in the movie production.


About his working on the film Paul said: "One day my children are going to ask me what I did with my life, and I can't just answer that I was a Beatle." On other occasions he made similar statements. That he wanted to be an activist in some way and make a difference.


So imagine this. It is 1966 and you are in London or Washington D.C. You are part of military intelligence or the CIA or MI-6 or some other alphabet agency. Perhaps you were involved in the Kennedy assassination, or creating false flag attacks, or are part of Operation Mockingbird or MK-Ultra. Whoever you are, you have different objectives about what the world should be, different than the average Brit or Yank that talks about "democracy"and "freedom". And you are connected to a network of similarly minded people who pull off quite a number of illegal covert ops.

If you are one of these people, could you and/or your network not know about what Paul McCartney is up to? Could you not be concerned of the power behind Beatlemania? If you were trying to get more money for nuclear weapons development, could you not be concerned about Beatlemania suddenly getting behind "Ban the Bomb"? If the real truth about the Kennedy Assassination coming out were a threat to your enterprises, is it possible that you could see Paul McCartney as anything but a serious threat?

Is it possible that "the Deep State", "The Cabal", "The Illuminati", or what ever you call it, is it possible that they could not have had a plan to "deal with the McCartney/Beatle" problem???

Take those things into consideration, and then look at the time line of events with the Beatles from their last real public concert on 29 August 1966 up until Lennon's assassination on 8 December 1980 and you will see a very different story.

[Matthew]

...
Finally, a point made well here: https://pieceofmindful.com/2022/09/28/the-siren-song-of-sage-of-quay/ it can be useful to examine a pheonomenon such as 'Paul is Dead' even if one doesn't buy into it...

I've enjoyed the thread much more than I thought I would. Like the above points there seems more to it, ^ I thought this was a good one too :dancing:

[DNA]

That was really well written Kryztian.
Some great points.

My only problem with the Paul is dead theory would have been the family.
I just couldn't see how they would let things continue in that vein. The family that is.
But there are ways.
Approach people the right way.
Play to their sympathies and sense of patriotism.

For me I didn't have a problem seeing the "Paul is dead" angle here but it is worth mentioning I'm not their biggest fan either. The Beatles that is, I'm not their biggest fan.
So I'm not as invested.

This one hits home a different way for me.
Because if one of the most popular and well known people in the world can be replaced like this it opens the door to "who can't they replace?".
Bill Gates comes to mind.
Maybe Zuckerberg as well.
It would be the ultimate play ball or else tool.
Easy to see a Jack Dorsey get super compliant after a threat like this.

Yeah I 100% think the Paul replacement theory is valid and that the real threat and challenge is in recognizing where else this practice has been executed in the world at large.

[T Smith]

I posit that if one is convinced Paul is an imposter they will invariably find reason to continue believing it - like finding a picture of Paul's earlobe that doesn't look quite right, etc. It's a form of confirmation bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), if I may.

Many years ago, when I didn't know much more about the JFK assassination besides what I learned from Oliver Stone's film--when the vast majority of the public still considered anything other than Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone to be a "silly conspiracy theory"--I got into a discussion with a friend about the possibility. He had done a deep dive into the Kennedy assassination whereas I was versed in the Hollywood version of events but never delved too much deeper. My friend has exceptional critical thinking skills and an open mind, so I respected his opinion. If he had looked into it, and if had an opinion about it, I would trust his conclusions.

So I asked my friend whether he thought the JFK murder was a cover-up.

His short answer? He was absolutely convinced that it was impossible to cover up and in no way did events unfold other than how we were told they unfolded per the official investigation. To think otherwise was a "silly conspiracy theory" (not that he didn't subscribe to quite a few other conspiracies, but this wasn't one of them). The JFK conspiracy was "rubbish" that belonged in the "trash heap".

Reading through this thread I find myself remembering that discussion many years ago. His utter dismissal reminds me very much like some of the valued opinions herein. Anyway, I was shocked by his resolute conclusion because I knew he once considered JFK's assassination to be a conspiracy and had looked into it extensively. In his case, he started off with the kind of bias a man might base a conclusion on, but in the end he quickly changed his mind. So what broke through his confirmation bias? The answer is, he read the entire Warren Commission Report, cover to cover, a colossal manuscript, loaded with facts, details, intricacies, times, dates, places, and testimony--certainly not an abridged report of what happened or light reading. Not only did he read it, word for word, he studied it. And examined it. And he confirmed all the sources and references and back-storied all that information (to make sure it was true) and did more research.

At the end of the day he concluded a conspiracy would have been impossible to pull off based on the information in that report. And it was something he was so resolved about I didn't look any deeper into the JFK murder for many years after and took his opinion wholesale. The whole JFK thing was probably just an "Elvis is Alive", or "Paul is Dead" kind of thing.

Which brings me to the point--and I will echo your own observations here--my friend's critical thinking wasn't off, but he was subject to a different kind of bias, a non sequitur bias, where his sound conclusions were based on a faulty premise. He assumed, as given, that the official commission was paneled and was constituted as impartial to all but the facts of the event. And I'm not necessarily suggesting the commission deliberately misled the public with faulty or fake facts; they may well have been paneled with the best of intentions to be impartial to all but the facts of the event. But sometimes even the well-intended can be party to a conspiracy and not even know it.

I haven't talked to my friend in a number of years--since then so much more information is available--so I have no idea if he still believes in the Oswald-Acted-Alone theory, but we all know his conclusions were based on a false given.

I also have no idea what is going on with the whole Paul is Dead thing, so I won't posit a strong opinion about it here, but I did read the entire Billy Shears memoir. It was hard to put down. And I would caution anyone who dismisses outright what Mike Williams is saying to examine the premise on which the base their opinions. There are some very compelling tidbits in that memoir that have nothing to do with earlobes and height differences -- dare I say evidence? -- that certainly made me scratch my head a little bit. There are anecdotal twists that just don't add up. So there may just be something to what Mike Williams is saying.

My two cents. I leave them here on the table :)

[Kryztian]

The Beatles, Mind Control and the Culture Wars


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMSlq9sYrQc

Some of the claims in this video:

Beatles and also the Rolling Stones are a construct of Tavistock, and they were created as a social engineering initiative.


The Illuminati declared war on humanity on September 11, 1962, especially against religion. They created the Beatles to destroy religion. Brian Epstein even said this outright to "Billy".


The public image of not just Paul, but of all the Beatles, was planned by Tavistock.


Billy Shears (that is, the man currently posing as Paul McCartney) is the son of Aleister Crowley, a product of ritual sex magic. He was groomed and handled by Crowley for ten years.


Much of the Beatles lyrics were written by Theodor Adorno.


Yoko was John Lennon's handler for Tavistock.


Is any of this in any way substantiated in the book or else where? It certainly isn't in the video and I doubt it is in the "Billy Shears" book? We are just supposed to assume this is part of the story, based on a book that declares itself to be fiction and isn't disclosing who the real author is?

If Paul McCartney was disappeared/murdered and replaced (and he was), then this is a major crime. There is so much good information showing why the PTBs would want to get rid of Paul, that shows how it could be done, the show the Paul from before 1967 and the Paul from after are very different people. It is all the type of information of information you would present in court to make a case.

If you masterminded a crime to take away one of the world's most popular and influential entertainers, then you would also mastermind the cover up. One way to cover up a real conspiracy is with junk conspiracy theory. This version of the story, based on Thomas Uharriet's "The Memoirs of Billy Shears" is exactly that. It distracts you from the real factual research and allows you to fantasize about all your favorite villans, here, with Yoko Ono as a Tavistock agent.

[jaybee]

.

This can be an entertaining conspiracy and I enjoyed the video... 'The Beatles Mind Control and Culture Wars'... but I don't buy the Paul died (or was murdered) and replaced theory - John Lennon himself referred to the Tavistock Institute at some point when he became aware of how the Beatles were thrust into super stardom and used to influence culture especially Youth Culture .... he kind of went one better, though, with his anti war stance and political + artistic work with Yoko Ono and we all know what happened to him - (possible Manchurian Candidate type of assassination.?)

Now John actually WAS murdered - maybe the roots of the Paul died thing (psyop?) was to steer away from that - and to create disharmony around the Beatles legacy generally ...

Just to pick up on the point that Lennon and McCartney wrote too many songs than was possible in the timeframe - (in Jay Weidner/Mike Williams video) I remember when the news story broke in the 60s about the Beatles taking LSD.... now time can go weird under the influence and one very intense day might be like a week.. a lot of their music became very trippy - - this change in direction is put down to 'Billy Shears' in the Paul Dead Conspiracy ...... but.....

Use of September 11th in Paul Dead story... (in Weidner interview video)... the date the Illuminati declared war on Christianity (1962).... the day the original Paul died (or was ritually murdered).. (1966)... the day Billy Shears was born ... either 9th Sept or 11th Sept (1937) ... I can't help thinking this iconic 9/11 date is being used to give more umph to the conspiracy theory...

[T Smith]

The Beatles, Mind Control and the Culture Wars


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMSlq9sYrQc

Some of the claims in this video:

Beatles and also the Rolling Stones are a construct of Tavistock, and they were created as a social engineering initiative.


The Illuminati declared war on humanity on September 11, 1962, especially against religion. They created the Beatles to destroy religion. Brian Epstein even said this outright to "Billy".


The public image of not just Paul, but of all the Beatles, was planned by Tavistock.


Billy Shears (that is, the man currently posing as Paul McCartney) is the son of Aleister Crowley, a product of ritual sex magic. He was groomed and handled by Crowley for ten years.


Much of the Beatles lyrics were written by Theodor Adorno.


Yoko was John Lennon's handler for Tavistock.


Is any of this in any way substantiated in the book or else where? It certainly isn't in the video and I doubt it is in the "Billy Shears" book? We are just supposed to assume this is part of the story, based on a book that declares itself to be fiction and isn't disclosing who the real author is?



That's just it. It's been awhile since I read the book so I won't speak about it with 100% authority, but if memory serves, it doesn't advance any of these claims. The claims Williams posits in his podcasts may be implied in the book, but I believe the bullet points above are Mike William's interpretation based on his reading of the book and his research. So Mike Williams may be wandering on a speculative tangent with the claims you take issue with, but that doesn't necessarily discount the notion that Paul was replaced for whatever agenda. Also, the author isn't anonymous. He is a relatively unknown writer who was commissioned to publish a kind of "documentary fiction" account of the story, in the 1st person, on behalf of "Paul McCartney", through the voice of Billy Sheers. So the book almost reads with an air as if the narrator needs to get something soul-crushing off his chest (hence the book) to get right with the natural order of things before he moves on. And, as a Beatles fan growing up, with a good share of esoteric trivia about the fab four, I can attest that whoever gave the author all the info to write the book, e.g. anecdotes about the songs, how they were recorded, historical information about times, places, events, etc., has insider and extensive knowledge about the band.

The Beatles and Rolling Stones may be a Tavistock creation--or were at least sculpted or guided by its social engineering agenda through George Martin--much like many pop artists are today, e.g. Katy Perry, et al, (this claim seems 100% plausible to me), but I do have doubts about the other claims. I'm not convinced about the connection with Aleister Crowley or that Yoko Ono was an asset. But who the hell really knows?

Even if you're only a casual fan of Lennon/McCartney and/or intrigued by the cultural phenom of the Beatles, or if the conspiracy Mike Williams talks about piques your interest in general, I would highly recommend you pick up the book and read through it yourself. It's a very interesting read. And you may just come out on the other side of it surprised about how you think about this subject... :)

[Kryztian]

That was really well written Kryztian.
Some great points.

My only problem with the Paul is dead theory would have been the family.

Thank you for that.

Some interesting things about his family relations:


In 1964 he bought his father a house and an expensive racehorse. In 1976, his father died. McCartney #2 refused to pay any of the medical bills, and a few weeks later, he stopped giving his step mother an allowance and then he made her and his stepsister move out of that house. The Paul from before 1966 has a history of being extremely generous with gifts and assistance to people, and the Paul from after 1966 had been notoriously stingey with money, a major reason why Linda Eastman divorced him. Just one piece from a massive pool of evidence that a "personality change" that seems to have occurred around 1966.



Between 1959 and 1962 while the Beatles were living in Hamburg, Paul had an affair with Erika Hübers. In 1962 Hübers gave birth to a daughter, Bettina, and Paul was listed as the father on the birth certificate. In 1966, McCartney paid Hübers $12,000 dollars, but after that never received another payment. In 1984 she filed a paternity suit, which was dismissed when the blood test came back negative for a match. In 2007 the daughter, Bettina Kribschen, accused McCartney of sending a double (https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/ex-beatle-accused-of-faking-paternity-test-paul-mccartney-under-investigation-in-berlin-a-483950.html) for the blood test in 1984, claiming the man who showed up for the test had a similar face as Paul McCartney, and that his signature on the 1984 paternity test came from a right handed person, and Paul was left handed.



In 1976 his father died. Paul did not attend for the reason that he was in Germany at the time on tour with Wings and did not attend. He did not have a concert the day of the funeral and he could have easily taken a flight there and back and made it back in time for the next concert. Or with his money, he could have easily chartered a plane.

[onawah]

I got another reply today which reads:

"timishere1925
9 hours ago
You need to look at Mike's Channel on YouTube. Billy Shears went through numerous plastic surgeries, used fillers,latex and wigs. And yes, it is strongly inferred that Billy was waiting in the "Wings" to replace biological Paul. More things are possible than you can imagine."

(I haven't read the book he mentions, but that would seem to have the definitive evidence, if it's credible.)


I had a brief exchange with OrpheoTreshula on youtube chat after watching "The Beatles, Mind Control and the Culture Wars" https://youtube.com/watch?v=aMSlq9sYrQc
I wrote:
"That's an awfully big 'coincidence' that Crowley's alleged son Billy was such a close look-alike for Paul. Or was he just waiting in the wings for some reason until Paul was out of the way? Doesn't make sense."

OrpheoTreshula replied:

"You mean Paul was chosen to ... oh god... be the sacrifice and Billy was always the intended? Ouch. I hope you didn't mean that because I'm not thinking it."

There were a few physical characteristics noted in the video that differentiated Billy from Paul; one being a difference in height, one being different ears, and both are important differences.
But the fact remains that they both looked and sounded nearly identical (at least, to most people...).
That is simply too much of a "coincidence", not to mention the other connections between the two and the presence of Crowley in the mix, not to make arriving at unpleasant conclusions, or at least suspicious ones...logical.
So the substitution, if there was indeed one, appears rather ominous.

[Journeyman]

I posit that if one is convinced Paul is an imposter they will invariably find reason to continue believing it - like finding a picture of Paul's earlobe that doesn't look quite right, etc. It's a form of confirmation bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), if I may.

Many years ago, when I didn't know much more about the JFK assassination besides what I learned from Oliver Stone's film--when the vast majority of the public still considered anything other than Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone to be a "silly conspiracy theory"--I got into a discussion with a friend about the possibility. He had done a deep dive into the Kennedy assassination whereas I was versed in the Hollywood version of events but never delved too much deeper. My friend has exceptional critical thinking skills and an open mind, so I respected his opinion. If he had looked into it, and if had an opinion about it, I would trust his conclusions.

So I asked my friend whether he thought the JFK murder was a cover-up.

His short answer? He was absolutely convinced that it was impossible to cover up and in no way did events unfold other than how we were told they unfolded per the official investigation. To think otherwise was a "silly conspiracy theory" (not that he didn't subscribe to quite a few other conspiracies, but this wasn't one of them). The JFK conspiracy was "rubbish" that belonged in the "trash heap".

Reading through this thread I find myself remembering that discussion many years ago. His utter dismissal reminds me very much like some of the valued opinions herein. Anyway, I was shocked by his resolute conclusion because I knew he once considered JFK's assassination to be a conspiracy and had looked into it extensively. In his case, he started off with the kind of bias a man might base a conclusion on, but in the end he quickly changed his mind. So what broke through his confirmation bias? The answer is, he read the entire Warren Commission Report, cover to cover, a colossal manuscript, loaded with facts, details, intricacies, times, dates, places, and testimony--certainly not an abridged report of what happened or light reading. Not only did he read it, word for word, he studied it. And examined it. And he confirmed all the sources and references and back-storied all that information (to make sure it was true) and did more research.

At the end of the day he concluded a conspiracy would have been impossible to pull off based on the information in that report. And it was something he was so resolved about I didn't look any deeper into the JFK murder for many years after and took his opinion wholesale. The whole JFK thing was probably just an "Elvis is Alive", or "Paul is Dead" kind of thing.

Which brings me to the point--and I will echo your own observations here--my friend's critical thinking wasn't off, but he was subject to a different kind of bias, a non sequitur bias, where his sound conclusions were based on a faulty premise. He assumed, as given, that the official commission was paneled and was constituted as impartial to all but the facts of the event. And I'm not necessarily suggesting the commission deliberately misled the public with faulty or fake facts; they may well have been paneled with the best of intentions to be impartial to all but the facts of the event. But sometimes even the well-intended can be party to a conspiracy and not even know it.

I haven't talked to my friend in a number of years--since then so much more information is available--so I have no idea if he still believes in the Oswald-Acted-Alone theory, but we all know his conclusions were based on a false given.

I also have no idea what is going on with the whole Paul is Dead thing, so I won't posit a strong opinion about it here, but I did read the entire Billy Shears memoir. It was hard to put down. And I would caution anyone who dismisses outright what Mike Williams is saying to examine the premise on which the base their opinions. There are some very compelling tidbits in that memoir that have nothing to do with earlobes and height differences -- dare I say evidence? -- that certainly made me scratch my head a little bit. There are anecdotal twists that just don't add up. So there may just be something to what Mike Williams is saying.

My two cents. I leave them here on the table :)

A very interesting two cents they were, easily a quarter's worth :P At the risk of diverting slightly, although still I think within the wheelhouse of Mark's question above... On your critical friend's take on the JFK assassination. I was once that person, we likely all were. Looking at the accounts of events from within the standard narrative point of view, applying Occam's razor, dismissing claims made without evidence. There's nothing wrong with any of that, it's still the most reliable path to truth for most questions, but it does rest on a set of premises, that people are acting rationally, in their own best interests, that history is as we're told it was, that our knowledge of public and private institutions, their origin and their purpose is all as publicly disclosed. A lot of assumptions once you start to think about it. Your friend goes the extra mile, he does the hard yards and he reads the Warren report in full. At close, he's satisfied because a coherent, corrobrated account has been produced. Within those premises he's done as much as could reasonably be done to look for truth and is justified in leaving it there.

The replacement of Paul McCartney, with such massive risks of discovery and consequent reputational damage, would be very difficult to justify if all that was at stake was a pop group and incredibly difficult to achieve if the only resources at hand were those of a record company or some music producers. Those people would reach for a solution within their own wheelhouse, they'd find another musician and the show would go on. Numerous groups before and since have weathered the loss of key players. Some didn't, but the lifespan of groups in those days was short in any case, so people would move on to the next big thing. If there's anything to this one it has to come from a group with greater resources and bigger aims.

Which brings me to the perspective I eventually accepted in regard to Kennedy and the Beatles as well. James Shelby Downard expressed it in his 'King Kill 33' (https://www.revisionisthistory.org/kingkill33.html) documen:


Never allow anyone the luxury of assuming that because the dead and deadening scenery of the American city-of-dreadful-night is so utterly devoid of mystery, so thoroughly flat-footed, sterile and infantile, so burdened with the illusory gloss of "baseball-hot dogs-apple-pie-and-Chevrolet" that it is somehow outside the psycho-sexual domain.

The eternal pagan psychodrama is escalated under these "modern" conditions precisely because sorcery is not what 20th century man can accept as real. Thus the "Killing of the King" rite of November, 1963 is alternately diagnosed as a conflict Needless to say, each of these groups has a place in the symbolism having to do with the Kennedy assassination.

But the ultimate purpose of that assassination was not political or economic but sorcerous: for the control of the dreaming mind and the marshalling of its forces is the omnipotent force in this entire scenario of lies, cruelty and degradation. Something died in the American people on November 22, 1963-call it idealism, innocence or the quest for moral excellence. It is the transformation of human beings which is the authentic reason and motive for the Kennedy murder and until so-called conspiracy theorists can accept this very real element they will be reduced to so many eccentrics amusing a tiny remnant of dilettantes and hobbyists.

It's amazing how if one allows for this perspective to be true, even for a moment as a thought experiment, how much the world of 2022 makes more sense.

[Matthew]

This video of an interview with John Lennon has the caption "The interview that got John Lennon killed", but I doubt this was the oddly specific catalyst.

But I liked the way John didn't say "they're idiots", or "the buffoons don't know what they're doing". He called them "maniacs" :bigsmile: :thumbsup:

https://twitter.com/nbreavington/status/1628736842156720129

[jaybee]

.

I don't think for one minute that John Lennon would have kept quiet about a Paul replacement -

Or cooperated with anything as nefarious as what's speculated about in this thread...

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

.

I don't think for one minute that John Lennon would have kept quiet about a Paul replacement -



Agree, I don't think he would've gone along with it at all.

Of all the Beatles, John was the most conscientious, genuine and outspoken. That's the key word. Outspoken. He couldn't and wouldn't keep his mouth shut. In his pomp John had a huge amount of power in shaping the minds of the masses - against Vietnam particularly, and the Bomb. To the powers that be he was a menace! And no one disputes that.

If there really had been a move to 'replace' a Beatle with a stooge or an imposter John would have been the logical target, not Paul. But why replace a pop star anyway? To what end? For what actual purpose? To go to such extraordinary lengths there would have to be a good one!

And if there was one, and it really was that good, this would undoubtedly have been done again. Other 'dead' movers and shakers would also have been replaced for the same or similar (nefarious) ends. James Dean maybe, or Marilyn Monroe. Or in music Buddy Holly, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Brian Jones, Elvis - not to forget John Lennon himself in 1980.

But they weren't replaced.

When celebrities do die, they stay dead like everyone else. That was the case then and it's the same today. If Paul really had died in 1966, he would've died and that would've been the end of the story.

To find an exact duplicate of Paul, so close that not even his own family would notice (!) and have that person be also as musically talented - it just isn't possible. I think that's the bottom line. I honestly believe the reason a switch wasn't done is because there's no good reason to do so, it can't be done either, and the best evidence for the case points to a hoax anyway.

[T Smith]

.

I don't think for one minute that John Lennon would have kept quiet about a Paul replacement -



Agree, I don't think he would've gone along with it at all.

Of all the Beatles, John was the most conscientious, genuine and outspoken. That's the key word. Outspoken. He couldn't and wouldn't keep his mouth shut. In his pomp John had a huge amount of power in shaping the minds of the masses - against Vietnam particularly, and the Bomb. To the powers that be he was a menace! And no one disputes that.

If there really had been a move to 'replace' a Beatle with a stooge or an imposter John would have been the logical target, not Paul. But why replace a pop star anyway? To what end? For what actual purpose? To go to such extraordinary lengths there would have to be a good one!

And if there was one, and it really was that good, this would undoubtedly have been done again. Other 'dead' movers and shakers would also have been replaced for the same or similar (nefarious) ends. James Dean maybe, or Marilyn Monroe. Or in music Buddy Holly, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Brian Jones, Elvis - not to forget John Lennon himself in 1980.

But they weren't replaced.

When celebrities do die, they stay dead like everyone else. That was the case then and it's the same today. If Paul really had died in 1966, he would've died and that would've been the end of the story.

To find an exact duplicate of Paul, so close that not even his own family would notice (!) and have that person be also as musically talented - it just isn't possible. I think that's the bottom line. I honestly believe the reason a switch wasn't done is because there's no good reason to do so, it can't be done either, and the best evidence for the case points to a hoax anyway.

I actually agree with every bit of your reasoning here. Reading through the memoir (while keeping an open mind) I continually found myself asking, "but why? To what end?" And honestly, I still haven't found a satisfactory answer to those questions. None of it makes any sense, to me, unless the whole thing is some kind of sorcery cast upon the collective perception of things, be it for some dubious or benign purpose or for something entirely other well above my understanding of reality. But just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't so. Perhaps it only means I--and others--still have a lot to learn about how reality and collective consciousness works and what it all really means.... So this particular conspiracy--if one is open only to indulging the possibility of it without fully embracing it--is kind of like solving a very complex puzzle slightly above one's pay grade of understanding how the whole damn matrix actually works...

I will tell you for certain replacing Paul McCartney (again, only to indulge the possibility for sake of discussion) wasn't for money. It wasn't because "the show must go on." I'm with you there. It wasn't orchestrated by the music industry or even the Beatles' handlers. None of those explanations add up.

My gut tells me (and again, I only indulge the possibility to enrich my understanding of things) that the dynamic of what's going on here is much, much deeper, that the whole thing is some kind of psyop on a mass scale that may have nothing to do with a conspiracy between human actors... We may be talking about black magic or Aleister Crowley stuff (which is implied) that we don't fully understand. Why any sorcerer or group of sorcerers would cast this kind of spell on the world I could tell you not. And I don't claim to understand in the slightest what's down there in that deep underbelly of the subconscious collective driving our perception of reality--but it appears somebody or something is experimenting with it and stirring that cauldron. To what end or to what purpose I have no idea; I just know it intrigues the hell out of me and that's one reason I continue to come back to this particular enigma and find myself contemplating exactly what the hell it's all about.

All said, it's much, much easier to dismiss it all as nonsense--and I often do. But I'm just keeping any open mind as there are some very compelling things that just don't add up and are clearly not as they appear....

By the way, in the memoir, the author overtly implies John Lennon was a loose cannon about these things. So your observations about Lennon's proclivities are spot on; he was apparently a threat to the experiment, especially as he grew older. Which is why he was taken out (according to the memoir). We need to remember he was only 40 years old when he died. If we are talking about a psyop, it probably didn't sit right with him in his younger days, but his younger and more ambitious self went along with it nonetheless, up to a point. Sometimes maturity is the riskiest factor to guarding such a mind-blowing, reality-altering secret. John Lennon had just come back into the public eye and had just released his first album after a five-year hiatus with obscurity; if John Lennon was resolved to let it out, as the memoir implies, the progenitors of this experiment might be inclined to export him off the planet as a physical being.

I agree with your though processes, but I do find myself thinking about this, just as Mike Williams does. He throws out his ideas, which are interesting, if nothing more. As for me, I have no theories or answers...

[DNA]

The truth of the matter with John Lennon is that none of us know any more than what we've been told.
Might as well be a character from a book and nothing more.
If the Beatles were a Tavistock creation then they didn't write their music, their lyrics and probably not even their idiosyncrasies.
None of us know what they were threatened with in terms of keeping their mouths shut.

Their solo careers were pretty much garbage.
So that hints at something.
George Harrison had the closest thing to a Beatles album in my opinion.

[Journeyman]

...
Finally, a point made well here: https://pieceofmindful.com/2022/09/28/the-siren-song-of-sage-of-quay/ it can be useful to examine a pheonomenon such as 'Paul is Dead' even if one doesn't buy into it...

I've enjoyed the thread much more than I thought I would. Like the above points there seems more to it, ^ I thought this was a good one too :dancing:

I'm glad you took a look at that Matthew and found it of interest :) I think that's a fascinating site with some very interesting writers, comments section is also well worth a look.



Of all the Beatles, John was the most conscientious, genuine and outspoken. That's the key word. Outspoken. He couldn't and wouldn't keep his mouth shut. In his pomp John had a huge amount of power in shaping the minds of the masses - against Vietnam particularly, and the Bomb. To the powers that be he was a menace! And no one disputes that.

Au contraire Mark, that's precisely what some dispute. It's also the reason why making any definitive neat answer in this thread is so difficult. It's not a case of 'everything else is as commonly accepted, but Paul is dead and replaced.' it's pretty much 'nothing is as commonly accepted and, ps, Paul is dead and replaced.' In other words, the 'powers that be' in your statement above aren't the powers that be, they're placeholders, characters in a play, what have you? The real power is the hidden hand, maybe working via Tavistock, or something else. In this case Lennon and the counter culture movement would be a means of shaping the minds of the next generation, the perfect way to control without putting ones head above the parapet.

Of course when I start answering like this you or others can, quite understandably, say hold on, you're answering our justified skepticism on your first claim by making a series of other ones, all unsupported. I get that and don't blame anyone for disregarding the matter on those grounds.

I linked @Davetoo 's thread which touched on these replacement theories and tried to articulate there that I think there may be something to them, but that doesn't mean they're neccesarily a good place to focus interest. What was of use for me was getting me to look again at elements of our cultural history and ask if their could be another layer, esoteric, symbolic etc. If so, why? What would be the goal? What would we expect to see if that were the case? As a thought experiment it can be productive whether you buy the conspiracy or not?

[Arcturian108]

I have read most of this thread over the last few years, and just read the recent few pages to catch up on everyone's thinking. I have been convinced for several years that Paul was replaced by a very talented look-alike. Being psychic I cannot look at the current Paul version and the 1966 version and believe that I am seeing the same person. The energy signature of these two men is completely different. The real Paul McCartney had a soft, sweet presence and demeanor, while the newer version has a commanding, resolute feeling that is totally different than that of the original Paul. One of the most convincing bits of evidence for me, since I spent many years in Japan, is that when the newer version of Paul went to Japan for a Beatles concert he was arrested and held for several weeks if my memory serves me correctly, probably because his fingerprints didn't match the earlier ones of the original Paul.

[T Smith]

One of the most convincing bits of evidence for me, since I spent many years in Japan, is that when the newer version of Paul went to Japan for a Beatles concert he was arrested and held for several weeks if my memory serves me correctly, probably because his fingerprints didn't match the earlier ones of the original Paul.

This episode also convinced me something deeper was going and was touched on extensively in the memoir. If I were a researcher on this topic I would look at every nuance of this incident, including names, places, people, government officials involved, why and how Paul McCartney was finally released, etc. This might just be the smoking gun...

[jaybee]

One of the most convincing bits of evidence for me, since I spent many years in Japan, is that when the newer version of Paul went to Japan for a Beatles concert he was arrested and held for several weeks if my memory serves me correctly, probably because his fingerprints didn't match the earlier ones of the original Paul.

This episode also convinced me something deeper was going and was touched up extensively in the memoir. If I were a researcher on this topic I would look at every nuance of this incident, including names, places, people, government officials involved, why and how Paul McCartney was finally released, etc. This might just be the smoking gun...


Paul was arrested for possessing marijuana in 1980 in Japan - spent 9 days in a detention centre then got deported - just had a look and the Beatles played in Japan in July 1966 - which according to the conspiracy theory is the year Paul Number One departed... on 11th September ( 9/11 ) apparently...

I expect the detention in Japan is used to weave in the other prison story.. providing the grain of truth...

Unless there is another Japanese prison story...?

[T Smith]

One of the most convincing bits of evidence for me, since I spent many years in Japan, is that when the newer version of Paul went to Japan for a Beatles concert he was arrested and held for several weeks if my memory serves me correctly, probably because his fingerprints didn't match the earlier ones of the original Paul.

This episode also convinced me something deeper was going and was touched up extensively in the memoir. If I were a researcher on this topic I would look at every nuance of this incident, including names, places, people, government officials involved, why and how Paul McCartney was finally released, etc. This might just be the smoking gun...

Paul was arrested for possessing marijuana in 1980 in Japan - spent 9 days in a detention centre then got deported - just had a look and the Beatles played in Japan in July 1966 - which according to the conspiracy theory is the year Paul Number One departed... on 11th September ( 9/11 ) apparently...

I expect the detention in Japan is used to weave in the other prison story.. providing the grain of truth...

Unless there is another Japanese prison story...?

I will go back and look at all the details again... but--and don't quote me on this--if memory serves, what happened was, the imposter, i.e. Billy Sheers, was arrested in 1980 in Japan on a marijuana charge, but the "person" who was arrested didn't match the official records of the 1966 Paul McCartney who toured with the Beatles. So Japanese authorities (not at all considering a conspiracy was afoot) rather assumed whoever it was who got busted with the marijuana was impersonating a celebrity to try to get out of the charge. Naturally, that is the conclusion they came to. It took a few weeks to sort out, and if I'm not mistaken, a three-letter agency or two had to get involved to convince the Japanese authorities the man busted was indeed the genuine Paul McCartney.

I don't remember exactly what documents or evidence threw a wrench in the ordeal. But I do remember when I stumbled across the details it made me take pause....

[Losus4]

In 1966, James Paul McCartney was killed in a car crash and replaced with a double; a session musician by the name William Shears Campbell. (aka Billy Shears) It was and still remains the biggest kept secret in music.

Ai_9xwasx2c

[mountain_jim]

^ I always ignored with disbelief this conspiracy (violating the RAW quote in my sig file below), but this video moved me towards suspecting it really is/was true. Well done.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Lots of clips, sequences and soundbites, with little to no context. That is entirely misleading.

He uses this discrepancy as a foundation. That the second McCartney (from a whole decade later in the mid-1970s) is a different person owing to the shape of the face.
50715

Facial comparison says:
50716

An even earlier photo than the first (still from the Ed Sullivan Show, Feb 1964) shows McCartney with the same narrow features and long face. This is pre-1966.
50717

Then we're shown a height discrepancy, stating McCartney and Lennon were about the same height.
50718

He fails to mention that in the picture that seems to show McCartney standing significantly taller than Lennon that Lennon has his knees bent. Which would naturally make him shorter.

McCartney is/was always taller (but not by much) as shown in this photoshoot image from 1965.
50719

Cherry pick 'evidence' and one can be entirely persuasive of anything.

As I've tried to point out many times (as a once photographer) so much can change in a person from image to image, not merely over time, but the way a subject stands, the angle they're shot from, exposure, lighting, depth of field... Anomalies like this mean nothing in this regard - almost anyone who has made a profession behind the lens (as I have) will attest to that.

[Bill Ryan]

Lots of clips, sequences and soundbites, with little to no context. That is entirely misleading.... but maybe not the number of toes! :ROFL: (I'd never known about that before)

[happyuk]

An interesting perspective on the Beatles and their role in society, given in an interview with the late Dick Gregory, who was once good friends with John Lennon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foVZTLlMZQM).

From approximately 6:30 onwards, but the whole interview (as was anything by this splendid man) is well worth listening to. He recalls a conversation he once had with John Lennnon:

"Who are you? Do you really know who you are?"

"No, but why do you ask?"

"A poor little ignorant redneck cracker like you out of that part of Britain ain't never made it big. How'd you do it?"

"He said 'Our whole thing was CIA and British Intelligence.' He said 'All our songs was to turn white children onto drugs'"

"He said 'You know how high you got to be to see a yellow submarine? Hey Jude - that's about heroin. LSD - Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds'"

"And when they came over here for the Ed Sullivan Show and 200,000 white women was waiting'. All that was a trick. All that was a game."

KEh51oH9sSE

[Ewan]

I've read the first half dozen posts of the thread, and likewise the last 6.

Assuming he 'really is dead', has anyone offered an explanation as to why the perception he was still alive was so important to maintain? What catastrophic result would have occurred had it been revealed?
It seems every time someone in the public eye dies, within a week or so you hear whispers they're not really dead.. David Bowie was the last one I recall but -I don't pay much attention either.

[Open Minded Dude]

The Beatles could have played a practical joke with it all which would explain some (but not all phenomena). Maybe even some others around them were 'in' on the joke with all the (not-so-)hidden signs on album covers, etc.
First I find it quite baffling when I learnt and saw that (see video) some of the entourage addressed him as Billie at times, including a former girlfriend and John Lennon himself. But even that could have been just his nickname he got due to the practical joke. An internal joke of sorts.
But then there is the fingerprint stuff and later the Italian scientists in 2009 saying it was another person. Also the fact that he (Billy) supposedly is left-handed and trained to play it right-handed and sometimes was caught playing the guitar left handed again is strange.
Not sure where I am on this one actually.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

"He said 'You know how high you got to be to see a yellow submarine? Hey Jude - that's about heroin. LSD - Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds'"

"And when they came over here for the Ed Sullivan Show and 200,000 white women was waiting'. All that was a trick. All that was a game."

I don't much hold with anecdotes. Especially ones this dubious.

I admit, there's a strong probability the Beatles were indeed controlled, or infiltrated by design to corrupt and subvert - but not from the get go. From the get go they were just a band. An extraordinarily talented band.

And the Ed Sullivan Show a trick?? Nonsense. They were the biggest band in the world. Bringing them to America was business. And very smart business.

What's more, that famous appearance on Ed Sullivan was early 1964 - way before their psychedelic phase. "Lucy in the sky..." wasn't until '67, same for "Yellow Submarine". "Hey Jude" was '68.

[Jamie]

I've seen a few of the videos of the guy currently living at Paul McCartney's old house.
He really could be a brother, or the supposed original. Who knows!

[Losus4]

I've read the first half dozen posts of the thread, and likewise the last 6.

Assuming he 'really is dead', has anyone offered an explanation as to why the perception he was still alive was so important to maintain? What catastrophic result would have occurred had it been revealed?


Enormous loss of revenue for the British economy, and potential mass suicide of teenage girls. The band was too valuable an asset, and the inconvienient death of one of its members was not going to change that.

In regard to the height/face differences, they are just some of the coincidences on a very large pile, so that ignoring them completely you still have a very compelling case. Take the comparison site with a pinch of salt, as it also says these two are the same Biden—

https://i.imgur.com/bJUrurQ.png

[happyuk]

"He said 'You know how high you got to be to see a yellow submarine? Hey Jude - that's about heroin. LSD - Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds'"

"And when they came over here for the Ed Sullivan Show and 200,000 white women was waiting'. All that was a trick. All that was a game."

I don't much hold with anecdotes. Especially ones this dubious.

I admit, there's a strong probability the Beatles were indeed controlled, or infiltrated by design to corrupt and subvert - but not from the get go. From the get go they were just a band. An extraordinarily talented band.

And the Ed Sullivan Show a trick?? Nonsense. They were the biggest band in the world. Bringing them to America was business. And very smart business.

What's more, that famous appearance on Ed Sullivan was early 1964 - way before their psychedelic phase. "Lucy in the sky..." wasn't until '67, same for "Yellow Submarine". "Hey Jude" was '68.

Gregory strikes a chord with me in a way that many other researchers don't. I am actually still undecided on this is-he-isn't-he Paul McCartney conspiracy and I've gazed over way more before-after photos than I care to admit!
For me, (notwithstanding the great music they did) that they were used to divert the public into degeneracy holds as much water as the Paul is Dead theory.

I believe all of the Beatles were pushed (or at least not discouraged) to perform as spokespeople way beyond their actual experiences and abilities, as are many artists and showbusiness people. Rod Stewart, for example literally called Americans and their Constitutional freedoms stupid at the same time he was praising the clot shot that damaged his son.

Out of all of the Beatles, George Harrison was always my favourite in that he went looking for truths beyond what was presented to him.

Any respect I had for "Paul McCartney" evaporated when he shilled for the vax. Shameful how so many musicians who promoted counter culture in their youth went on to become establishment puppets.

50733

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

In regard to the height/face differences, they are just some of the coincidences on a very large pile, so that ignoring them completely you still have a very compelling case. Take the comparison site with a pinch of salt, as it also says these two are the same Biden—

https://i.imgur.com/bJUrurQ.png

I believe the two Bidens are the same. You have only to compare the general facial features at a glance - shapes of the eyes, nose, mouth, and distances between - to see the Biden on the left is the same as the Biden on the right but at slightly different ages. The identical crows-foot in the corner of the right eye is also a dead giveaway. I can honestly tell they're the same without any software - though, I can't explain the earlobes. Who knows what's going on there, but this is most certainly the same person.

Other images tell a different story however. The software proves itself faithfully.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=50740&d=1681817139

[DNA]

I've read the first half dozen posts of the thread, and likewise the last 6.

Assuming he 'really is dead', has anyone offered an explanation as to why the perception he was still alive was so important to maintain? What catastrophic result would have occurred had it been revealed?
It seems every time someone in the public eye dies, within a week or so you hear whispers they're not really dead.. David Bowie was the last one I recall but -I don't pay much attention either.

Bro this is a deep one.
The short answer is best although preposterous.
All the Beatles were fakes.
They didn't write their own music.
Lyrics and music were written and performed by industry musicians.
The Beatles averaged 3 albums a year for 7 years.
Of arguably the best music in the world.
With no one to serve as archetype.

As such with so much invested,, why not trade out one actor for another.

Dr. John Coleman stated in his 1994 lecture on the committee of three hundred that Tavistock had created the Beatles and rolling stones to alter western society.
To secularize the youth.
To provide a rational hysteria to displace Christianity.
Sounds crazy.
Then Billy shears,, the new Paul McCartney backed this up in his 2011 memoir.

You see it was never about replacing Paul, it was about replacing God.

[DNA]

An interesting perspective on the Beatles and their role in society, given in an interview with the late Dick Gregory, who was once good friends with John Lennon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foVZTLlMZQM).

From approximately 6:30 onwards, but the whole interview (as was anything by this splendid man) is well worth listening to. He recalls a conversation he once had with John Lennnon:

"Who are you? Do you really know who you are?"

"No, but why do you ask?"

"A poor little ignorant redneck cracker like you out of that part of Britain ain't never made it big. How'd you do it?"

"He said 'Our whole thing was CIA and British Intelligence.' He said 'All our songs was to turn white children onto drugs'"

"He said 'You know how high you got to be to see a yellow submarine? Hey Jude - that's about heroin. LSD - Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds'"

"And when they came over here for the Ed Sullivan Show and 200,000 white women was waiting'. All that was a trick. All that was a game."

KEh51oH9sSE

This is sad, and probably all true.
I was watching the movie almost famous last night and I just couldn't watch it.
I just kept seeing this whole shtick.
Rock and roll was a con job.
Effing sad.
Disastrous and sad

[Ewan]

Dr. John Coleman stated in his 1994 lecture on the committee of three hundred that Tavistock had created the Beatles and rolling stones to alter western society.
To secularize the youth.
To provide a rational hysteria to displace Christianity.
Sounds crazy.


Hmm, reminds me of "Weird Scenes Inside The Canyon" by Dave McGowan, did you read that?

Here's the link (https://archive.org/details/weirdscenesinsidethecanyonlaurelcanyoncovertopsthedarkheartofthehippiedream2014b).

[Flash]

WoW what a nice interview, thank you.

It makes me think that we should reblast the song Give peace a chance if Lennon and imagine all over the web and social media.



An interesting perspective on the Beatles and their role in society, given in an interview with the late Dick Gregory, who was once good friends with John Lennon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foVZTLlMZQM).

From approximately 6:30 onwards, but the whole interview (as was anything by this splendid man) is well worth listening to. He recalls a conversation he once had with John Lennnon:

"Who are you? Do you really know who you are?"

"No, but why do you ask?"

"A poor little ignorant redneck cracker like you out of that part of Britain ain't never made it big. How'd you do it?"

"He said 'Our whole thing was CIA and British Intelligence.' He said 'All our songs was to turn white children onto drugs'"

"He said 'You know how high you got to be to see a yellow submarine? Hey Jude - that's about heroin. LSD - Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds'"

"And when they came over here for the Ed Sullivan Show and 200,000 white women was waiting'. All that was a trick. All that was a game."

KEh51oH9sSE

This is sad, and probably all true.
I was watching the movie almost famous last night and I just couldn't watch it.
I just kept seeing this whole shtick.
Rock and roll was a con job.
Effing sad.
Disastrous and sad

[DNA]

Dr. John Coleman stated in his 1994 lecture on the committee of three hundred that Tavistock had created the Beatles and rolling stones to alter western society.
To secularize the youth.
To provide a rational hysteria to displace Christianity.
Sounds crazy.


Hmm, reminds me of "Weird Scenes Inside The Canyon" by Dave McGowan, did you read that?

Here's the link (https://archive.org/details/weirdscenesinsidethecanyonlaurelcanyoncovertopsthedarkheartofthehippiedream2014b).

It is indeed the exact same thing.
Tavistock on the British end and the department of defense and cia on the American end.

[Kryztian]

The Paul McCartney of the early 1960's was considered to be extremely generous with money and gifts to his friends. The Paul from the 1970's onward is considered to me extremely stingy and a money hoarder.

Sir Paul McCartney first UK billionaire musician
Michael Race,Business reporter, BBC News
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5n553p184o?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR20tH48wR3iSShJfBIHsMTPmfbLjk6TccmrSIqdx3cxry2VKrNI7hEN_QQ_ae m_ARdtsnyQmbbwsP59Y6jSwozliXHe_O9tU5stmQzJI73tnVpBSTd3L9Ri7xm-OIfEqmAw34waiU4KYZOXSypYMKd6

Sir Paul McCartney has become the first UK musician to become a billionaire, according to the Sunday Times Rich List.

The former Beatle, 81, boosted his wealth by £50m in the past year with touring, the lucrative value of his back catalogue and Beyoncé's cover of the classic track he wrote in 1968, Blackbird, helping him achieve the status.

Gopi Hinduja and his family were crowned the richest people in the UK again, with their wealth hitting £37.2bn, the largest fortune ever recorded by the newspaper.

Sir Elton John, Lord Lloyd-Webber and David and Victoria Beckham were among some of the well-known names on the list, which has minimum wealth entry of £350m.

This year’s list of 350 individuals and families together held a combined wealth of £795.3bn, which the Sunday Times said was a larger sum than Poland's economy.

But Robert Watts, compiler of the Sunday Times Rich List, said this year's list suggested that "Britain’s billionaire boom has come to an end".

"Many of our home-grown entrepreneurs have seen their fortunes fall and some of the global super rich who came here are moving away," he added.

Mr Watts said that "thousands of British livelihoods rely on the super-rich to some extent".

"We’ll have to wait and see whether we have now reached peak billionaire, and what that means for our economy," he added.

Similar to last year, several well-known names faced "significant financial setbacks", the newspaper said.

Due to a difficult year for Virgin Money and space tourism company Galactic, Sir Richard Branson's wealth fell to £2.4bn - the level it was in 2000.

But Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who bought a 27.7% stake in Manchester United for about £1.25bn in February, suffered "considerable losses" and was among the biggest fallers on 2024's list.

But the Sunday Times said his £6.16bn decline in wealth was largely due to a substantial fall in profits at chemicals giant Ineos Group.

Inventor Sir James Dyson and family, and Andy Currie, who has been a director of Ineos since 1999 also those who saw their wealth drop the most.

But Sir Jim and Sir James remain in the top five richest in the UK.

This year's new entries included Graham King, who the Sunday Times said had amassed a £750 million fortune from holiday parks, inheritance and housing asylum seekers for the government.

Jon and Susie Seaton, a couple who founded education publisher Twinkl at their kitchen table in Sheffield and sold a stake valuing the business at £500m also made the list alongside Euan Blair, Sir Tony Blair's eldest son, who set up £1.4bn apprenticeship tech firm Multiverse.

Sir Lewis Hamilton, the Formula 1 driver who is set to move from Mercedes to Ferrari for the 2025 season, was also a newcomer.

“These may be harder times to create wealth, but The Sunday Times Rich List continues to unearth entrepreneurs building fortunes in diverse and often surprising ways," Mr Watts said.

"This year’s new entries include people who have made money from artificial intelligence and virtual worlds as well as plumbing supplies and teaching aids."

[norman]

One clip of him speaking while driving a landrover up a country track is very convincing ( that he's not the original Paul)


https://x.com/Xx17965797N/status/1791555371393323250
1791555371393323250

[Bill Ryan]

Bumping this very interesting thread with a couple more videos featuring Mike Williams, the premier researcher of this very deep and multi-branched rabbit hole.

The first is an interview with Richard Syrett several years ago, quite a good basic intro to the entire thing for anyone who may be new to this. (But there are other good intros earlier in this thread.) The interview is only 45 minutes, though the video is a little longer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKGPS4_eOYQ

This next one is for closer followers of the intrigue (of which I am one :)). Mike Williams interviews author Sharon Clemons, who's just written a book called Forbidden Fruit: Solving the Hidden Puzzle in the Beatles' Works: from the Psychedelic Era. (https://amazon.com/Forbidden-Fruit-Solving-Beatles-Psychedelic-ebook/dp/B0D9WRPTFQ) It's only a few months old.

I started in to the interview, thinking I might not stay too long. But here are some reasons why I listened right through to the end.

Did anyone know that The Walrus refers to a hotel (https://www.arcticclubhotel.com/) in Seattle? And equally well-known there are The Egg-Men, The Egg-Man (who is different), and The English Garden? (Not in England, but in Seattle, named after a man called Carl English. It even has its own Wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_S._English_Jr._Botanical_Gardens).) And that Glass Onions are well-known crafts made in Seattle.

And that's just the start. Sharon Clemons goes down a complex rabbit hole of her own, also looking at The Magical Mystery Tour videos, one of which shows the Cascade Range of mountains close to Seattle. Clemons has become convinced that it was on the Beatles visit to Seattle, in August 1966, where Paul was ritually sacrificed and then immediately replaced by lookalike Billy Shears (the stage name for highly-talented musician William Shepherd).

Shepherd/'Shears' underwent plastic surgery (though this couldn't hide his longer face), was several inches taller than Paul (which is why the Beatles then made no more live performances), and had to learn to play the bass left-handed. 'Sir Paul McCartney', so very famous now, is still William Shepherd — and is actually now 87 years old, as Billy was older than the original Paul.

This is why 'McCartney' was held by the Japanese for 9 long days(!) back in January 1980 after he was stopped at Tokyo airport for carrying marijuana. The problem was that his fingerprints didn't match those held by Interpol, as the real Paul had had a minor brush with the German police way back in the Beatles' Hamburg days.

He was only released when MI5 intervened, something confirmed by musician Denny Laine (ex Moody Blues and Wings), who was a close friend of Shepherd at the time and like many others in the industry knew the entire story but was pledged to secrecy.

To fully understand the whole ritual sacrifice idea, one has to refer back to Mike Williams' many other videos in which he presents fascinating and compelling evidence that


The Beatles were an Illuminati/Tavistock project from the very start
The entire thing was linked to the work of satanist Aleister Crowley
'Lennon/McCartney' actually wrote few (if any!) of their own very well-known songs.

This all may sound outlandish (at least) to anyone unfamiliar with this. But if you're interested enough to listen to Sharon Clemons' presentation, it may be well worth the time.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jsmkVKNi9U

[Kryztian]

Bumping this very interesting thread with a couple more videos featuring Mike Williams, the premier researcher of this very deep and multi-branched rabbit hole.

Really, the premier researcher on this topic?

Bill, as I know you have a thicker skin that most of us most of us when it comes to ideas that we can get attached to, so without apology or any niceties, let me just directly say that:
this is :bs: utter garbage conspiracy theory. :bs: :ROFL:

(Okay, I really should take time to be more polite about this after you sent me those lovely llama photos (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?121734-Mara-returns-to-the-Mountains&p=1645085#post1645085) this morning. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!!!) :llama:

There really is so much to unpack about what actually happened in 1966 with the Beatles and it just isn't being done on this thread because there is so much talk and so much theory and so little factual research and so little critical thinking behind it. This guy, Richard Syrett, is to Beatles conspiracy research is what "Dr." Michael Salla is to ufology (at least since Salla started promoting Corey Goode). There are lots of unexamined flashy, attention grabbing ideas here: Aleister Crowley! Evil mind control engineers at the Tavistock Institute! Free Masons pulling the strings. I have heard others talking about the same and similar ideas and there is not one shred of rational evidence to support any of these ideas. Yes, an image of Crowley's face appears, along with faces of about 60 other historical figures, on the cover of the "Sgt. Pepper" album cover. Most people would conclude that John Lennon, who was into occult literature, read a book or two by Crowley, whose books became popular in the 60s, but you can probably get a lot more Youtube clicks and attention if you conclude only from that one little piece of data that Paul is the secret MI6 love child of Crowley and Pauline Robinson (Barbara Bush's mother), and indeed this type of pimped out "information" is now more likely to get you an interview Kerry Cassidy, (along with other individuals who directly speak to the Creator about Q-anon.) There is quite the appetite for garbage conspiracy out there is you can sex it up enough.
https://i.imgur.com/x68as4U.jpeg

Syrett calls himself a "researcher" - he's just another person who has cheapened the meaning of what doing research actually means. The only body of "evidence" he mentions are the books of Thomas Uharriet. These books are works of fiction and don't pretend to be anything more. They present ideas without any regard to verifiable facts. I don't think Uharriet has ever given an interview about his books and about their relation to what he thinks really happened - in fact, I have to wonder if there is a really is an actual Thomas E. Uharriet. (https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B00IRQSQ8C/about) (I also wonder if the person/people who actually wrote these books are working along with "Sorcha Faal" and others in a place like Langley, Virginia with the express intention of polluting the idea of the conspiracy field.) Syrett doesn't substantiate or verify any of the stories that are in these books, he just elaborates on them with more strange ideas of his own which, for all we know, could be the product of hallucinatory drugs.

One idea Syrett didn't get from Uharriet's fictional works is the idea that the Beatles never wrote their own songs. This came from John Coleman's 1992 book Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300 which claims that all the Beatle's songs were written by Theodore Adorno. Adorno's name pops up here on the forum every so often as some type of evil authoritarian mastermind who planned the mass chaos that ensued when Orson Welles did his famous War of the World's broadcast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(1938_radio_drama)) in 1938. I don't think any of these people have read (or are intellectually capable or reading) an essay or book by Adorno. Adorno was interested in the phenomena of human freedom and the development of human society and why it was failing in the first half of the twentieth century. He took it for granted that it was failing in Stalinist/Communist Russia, in fascist Spain, Italy and Germany, but also went on to show how Hollywood and popular music were also just a form of mind control. Long before there was a "Hollyweird" thread on this forum, there was Adorno.

He had a very distinct convoluted writing style and he also wrote "classical" music which sounded very close to the atonal music style of Arnold Schoenberg, which you will understand if you listen to a minute or two of his string quartet:

v5Tc4mXodrI

or read some of his essays, you can see a very convoluted and obscure use of language. He is probably the least likely person on planet Earth in the 20th century who could have written words and tunes like "Baby, you can drive my car, Yes, I'm gonna be a star ... Beep-beep, beep-beep, yeah" :facepalm:

8Ts2U1mkfz4

Of course in his interview Syrett tells us in a very authoritative manner that he is unsure if Adorno is the actual author. Kudos to him for that honesty, but the truth is, he is a lazy, and doesn't know the first thing about who Adorno and has probably never even read three paragraphs of his writing, but that isn't going to stop him from sounding like he is an authority in a radio broadcast.

If you are seriously interested in what happened with Paul McCartney in 1966, if you are seriously researching this matter, here are some of the things you should be looking at.

1) In June 30th, 1966 the Beatle's were in a press conference in Tokyo. Here is an excerpt:


Q: "You have attained sufficient honor and wealth. Are you happy?"

JOHN: "Yes."

Q: "And what do you seek next?"

JOHN: "Peace."

(laughter)

PAUL AND JOHN: "Peace."

PAUL: "Ban the bomb."

JOHN: "Ban the bomb, yeah."
http://www.beatlesinterviews.org/db1966.0630.beatles.html


2) Paul became friends with Mark Lane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lane_(author)), a former New York State politician who was friends with the Kennedy family and helped JFK's presidential campaign. Rush was quite skeptical of Warren Commission and wrote a book about it Rush to Judgement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_to_Judgment). Paul McCartney met Lane at a party in London before his book was published and he borrowed the manuscript from Lane and immediately read it and was impressed by it. There were plans for the book to become a documentary and Paul offered to write the music for the documentary. The director of the film documentary rejected this idea, but one has to wonder how many more people would have seen this movie if Paul had been part of it, and how much more mainstream JFK assassination theory would have become if that happened.

PcFyVna6hVM

3) Paul had stated that he wanted to leave some kind of a legacy, that he didn't want to be "just" a musician, he wanted to show his children that he was an activist for the good of humanity in some way.

4) "Beatlemania" refers to the very powerful anarchical force that the popularity of the Beatles channeled. When the Beatles came to New York City, streets had to be closed and woman threatened to jump off tall buildings if there were not granted a personal audience with Paul. In other places, there were fundamentalist Christians and other social conservatives who were there to protest the Beatles, but they were greatly outnumbers by a very enthusiastic and very charged crowd.
https://i.imgur.com/Atdx9sZ.jpeg

Now, put all those things together. An energized activist Paul McCartney demanding the truth about the Kennedy Assassination and wanting to have all nuclear weapons destroyed, preaching this to the millions and millions of charged up fans in the U.S., Great Britain, Europe, Japan, and every where else. Imagine you are J. Edgar Hoover (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoove) or General Curtis LeMay (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay) - what are you thinking? What is the conversation about this at MI6? Do you think these people are saying "we have to do something about this???" And what type of things would they do???

Questions like this should be at the center of understanding what really happened in 1966 with the Beatles. It's time to put aside Thomas Uharriet, Richard Syrett, discussions about Aleister Crowley, "the Beatle's didn't write their songs:, and the rest of this parade of nit-witted nincompoopery, so we can have a serious discussion about these matters.

[Bill Ryan]

Bumping this very interesting thread with a couple more videos featuring Mike Williams, the premier researcher of this very deep and multi-branched rabbit hole.

Really, the premier researcher on this topic?

Bill, as I know you have a thicker skin that most of us most of us when it comes to ideas that we can get attached to, so without apology or any niceties, let me just directly say that:
this is :bs: utter garbage conspiracy theory. :bs: :ROFL:

(Okay, I really should take time to be more polite about this after you sent me those lovely llama photos (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?121734-Mara-returns-to-the-Mountains&p=1645085#post1645085) this morning. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!!!)
:llama:


I'll keep on posting photos of llamas (and alpacas, if I can find them) until you tell me to stop! :P:heart:



One idea Syrett didn't get from Uharriet's fictional works is the idea that the Beatles never wrote their own songs. This came from John Coleman's 1992 book Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300 which claims that all the Beatle's songs were written by Theodore Adorno.

And also this, clipped from Mersey Beat, in 1962:

https://avalonlibrary.net/Bill/Mersey_Beat article_1962.jpg|

Larger:

https://avalonlibrary.net/Bill/Mersey_Beat article_1962_lg.jpg

[DNA]

Holy sh!t Kryztian...

Does a leather bound version come with that book you wrote?
It's good. :)

Isn't there a huge difference between the Beatles initial offering and what they were making just a few years later? Especially in so far as the incredible quality of the music was concerned?
And the massive yearly output averaging like 3 albums a year for 4 or 5 years. Of some of the best music ever made?
I was listening to a Jay Weidner podcast on the subject and he stated that session musicians were used to record and teach the Beatles the songs. And some of those Session musicians had come forward.

What I'm saying is this.
It appears at first the Beatles may have indeed wrote their songs and music but that as they got exponentially better it seems someone did take over writing lyrics and music. This falls in line with why they would stop touring,, because they couldn't even play the music anymore.

Also...
You mention John Coleman.
And that guy has been correct about just about everything.
So yes. I believe Coleman's assertions that Tavistock created the Beatles and other British bands just like I believe American intelligence government types were involved with Laural Canyon based American music.

[Kryztian]

Mike Williams, the premier researcher of this very deep and multi-branched rabbit hole.


I don't know much about Mike Williams, but for me, the premier researcher on the Paul McCartney switcheroo is Tina Foster. Her excellent book is Plastic Macca.

https://i.imgur.com/1LBlpYH.jpeg

And her blog is: https://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/

Some of the points she discusses in impeccable detail in her book:

A very detailed timeline of the events of 1966-69. When did we last see the authentic Paul McCartney (August 25th in Seattle - there is reason to believe that a double was used at the August 29th "final concert" in San Francisco) to his appearance in 1969 in Life magazine. There really was no public documented sighting of Paul for those 27 months.


A history of doubles and impersonators. How many people (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noreiga) have employed doubles and have others surgically altered to look more like them. Where the surgery succeed and where it fails. (It was very hard in the 60's to alter the ears - and after 1966 was when all the Beatles just happened to grow their hair long and cover their ears.)


The many, many personality differences between Paul (the person until 1966) and Faul (the person known as Paul McCarthey from 1969 onward).


The many gaffes and memory lapses of Faul as he recounted his life from before 1966. (e.g. Paul and Faul told two completely and conflicting stories about how he came up with the idea for the song Yesterday, he couldn't remember losing his virginity in a room where all the other Beatles were present.).


The story of two forensic scientists, Francesco Gavazzeni and Gabriella Carlesi, who wanted to show that pre 1966 Paul and post 1969 Paul were the same person. After applying the new technology they developed, they came to just the opposite conclusion, that there were two different people here. They were reluctant to publish their results, but finally did in the Italian version of Wired Magazine: https://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2010/01/forensic-science-proves-paul-was.html


And this is only scratching the surface.

[Bill Ryan]

And this is only scratching the surface.No kidding! :)

For anyone new to this thread, the following may be interesting. In each of the two 2x4 image montages below, the person on the top right (labeled '1') is known and fully agreed to be the 'real' Paul. Who the others may be could be worth asking.

For anyone who has a good AI face-matching tool (to see if two different photos are likely to be of the same person), this might be a fun exercise. (I've not tried this myself, but I do trust my eyes. As many have said about this kind of thing, once you 'see it' it's very hard to 'UNsee it' ever again. :))

https://avalonlibrary.net/Bill/The_Many_Faces_of_Paul_McCartney_1.jpg

https://avalonlibrary.net/Bill/The_Many_Faces_of_Paul_McCartney_2.jpg

[Kryztian]

Holy sh!t Kryztian...
Isn't there a huge difference between the Beatles initial offering and what they were making just a few years later?


I am no expert in the Beatles music, but there is certainly a difference in their music from 1967 onwards: It is much darker. It really seems like they had gone through some traumatizing shock. There is this theory that Paul had a car accident in November of 1966. I don't think that is what actually happened, but that could have been what the other Beatles were told so that they would cooperate and accept the fake Paul. This is also the time when they all grew their hair out and started experimenting with drugs.



that session musicians were used to record and teach the Beatles the songs. And some of those Session musicians had come forward.


When the Beatles were in studio recording, the engineers and other people behind the glass window were not allowed to see what was going on. They could only listen. So there could have been other people playing and singing in place of Paul - another bass guitarist, another person with a similar vocal timbre. There have been computer analysis of these recordings and the conclusion is that it is not the same pre 1966 McCartney singing on some of the later recordings.



they got exponentially better it seems someone did take over writing lyrics and music.


Again, I don't know. But I find it hard to believe the same guy who wrote "Yesterday", "Blackbird", "Penny Lane", etc. also wrote "Ebony and Ivory" and a lot of other banalities of the 70's and 80's that my mind has fortunately forgotten.





You mention John Coleman.
And that guy has been correct about just about everything.
So yes. I believe Coleman's assertions that Tavistock created the Beatles and other British bands just like I believe American intelligence government types were involved with Laural Canyon based American music.

Truth is 1) I've never read Coleman's book 2) In my searching today I found someone who claims Coleman got the idea from Lyndon LaRouche. Not sure I believe that. I understand the Coleman's book is compelling, but I would ask, what new ideas did Coleman introduce back in 1992 that other people have since found evidence for or confirmed from different sources? I think the idea of the "Committee of 300" is exclusively his and no one else has proven the existence of such a group but I would love to be proved wrong, and since your "Location" indicates you are now living in a different state, I am now compelled to say "Show Me!" :ROFL:

[Kryztian]

Larger:

https://avalonlibrary.net/Bill/Mersey_Beat article_1962_lg.jpg

Yes, it's no tinfoil hatted conspiracy that the Beatles performed and recorded songs by other people including Burt Bacharach, Smokie Robinson, Chuck Berrie, Buddy Holly and others. But after 1965, all the songs they recorded were their own (unless you believe it was really Theodore Adorno :facepalm:).

Here is a comprehensive list which also shows the song writter: List of songs recorded by the Beatles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_recorded_by_the_Beatles)

When the started off in the late 50's as the Quarreymen, they were mostly singing the same songs that Elvis performed.

[DNA]

This is a rumble presentation of Dr. John Coleman's committee of 300.
Scrubbed from youtube, so you know it's good.
https://rumble.com/v2cf37q-dr.-john-coleman-the-committee-of-300.html

[norman]

I'm still waiting for the Michael Jackson boot to drop, in this saga.


He bought "Northern Songs". I'd ask him why but he died soon afterwards

[Mike Gorman]

The Beatles, I have been a massive fan of their music since I first heard them on the radio when I was 4-5 1962/3 - this music shone out to me, I was already a precocious music lover and I have always responded to music wholeheartedly, and with an innate understanding: it was inevitable that I should seek out learning, and to become an accomplished player, this has been an organic part of my nature, my being since I can remember. I was a child of the 1960's and the music made an enormous impression on me, Paul McCartney has a distinctive musical presence, this is akin to one's fingerprints, this cannot be simulated, manufactured, or forced into existence, it is the Ontology of a musician. I cannot see anything approaching a replacement for Paul, it is an intriguing mental game, a media maze, a psyop! I will have to declare my professional opinion as a genuine musician that all of this is baloney, Paul McCartney lived and lives among us, his distinctive song writing, his playing, his voice and his musical intelligence has remained contiguous, and is authentic. One of my favourite recent performances from Paul was at the "Concert for George" where he performs "All Things Must Pass" in tribute to his fallen brother, and for Eric Clapton - you can tell he puts everything he has into this:o6iaSWSB7rE
This is my opinion, but yes this subject has generated a lot of very interesting material!

[DNA]

And this is only scratching the surface.No kidding! :)

For anyone new to this thread, the following may be interesting. In each of the two 2x4 image montages below, the person on the top right (labeled '1') is known and fully agreed to be the 'real' Paul. Who the others may be could be worth asking.

For anyone who has a good AI face-matching tool (to see if two different photos are likely to be of the same person), this might be a fun exercise. (I've not tried this myself, but I do trust my eyes. As many have said about this kind of thing, once you 'see it' it's very hard to 'UNsee it' ever again. :))

https://avalonlibrary.net/Bill/The_Many_Faces_of_Paul_McCartney_1.jpg

https://avalonlibrary.net/Bill/The_Many_Faces_of_Paul_McCartney_2.jpg





Just throwing this out there.
In "the memoirs of William Shears" he states he isn't the only person to have played the role of Paul McCartney.
There could be multiple different people among those faces.


There is another thing he said which stuck with me. That the Beatles were surprised and kind of shocked that the public rejected the "Monkees" being as the public didn't jibe with their being "created" by producers rather than being an organic thing. His surprise came from his band and most of the other big bands like the rolling stones were just like the monkeys, manufactured.


When you know this stuff you start to hear things that let you know something is up.


I remember Pete Townsend of the who saying he didn't know Roger Daltry at all and basically was just a guitarist paired with a great singer that had little or no say in the band. That blew me away. One of the greatest most influential guitarists of all time saying he had little to no input in his own band. That was crazy to me.

I heard Flea of the red hot chili peppers was asked about his relationship with his drummer. His response blew me away. He said that he didn't really know him, that they just played together. This band has been together for over thirty years.

This blew me away.
You can't just write music with someone and not know them. It's a process. Now if you didn't actually write the music. I guess you could not know someone in your band but even then you should know them through rehearsals and playing shows. Unless there is a rotation of actors.
Just thinking outloud


Sorry Mike Gorman.
This stuff is true.
The Beatles and the whole sixties movement was the psyop.
A psyop to replace religion with pop culture according to William Shears.

I always felt like this song was trying to tell people what happened.

UYeV7jLBXvA

[Mike Gorman]

Obviously I disagree DNA, I am sorry you are beyond reason and recall of rationality: there is a lot of it about. The 1960's was just a post WWII decade where a lot of music and ideas were presented, there was no over arching psychological operation governing how we all responded. To believe that Paul McCartney is some type of manufactured imposter is your right, I respect this but I find it a peculiar and floridly irrational belief: my own judgement and musical education tells me otherwise: carry on with the circus if it makes you feel better. I rest my case. This is impossible, it is completely misguided.

[DNA]

Obviously I disagree DNA, I am sorry you are beyond reason and recall of rationality: there is a lot of it about. The 1960's was just a post WWII decade where a lot of music and ideas were presented, there was no over arching psychological operation governing how we all responded. To believe that Paul McCartney is some type of manufactured imposter is your right, I respect this but I find it a peculiar and floridly irrational belief: my own judgement and musical education tells me otherwise: carry on with the circus if it makes you feel better. I rest my case. This is impossible, it is completely misguided.

Mike
The sixties are what have destroyed this country. The destruction of the nuclear family started with free love and women's lib.
Everything about the sixties is a lie made with the intention of destroying the United States from within.
The celebration of nihilism.
Rock music is almost exclusively promoting irresponsible sex, drinking and drugs.
Bands that didn't stick to this game plan were often shredded by the critics who in my opinion were also controlled.

After learning about Tavistock controlling the British invasion and Laurel Canyon being the impetus of the American music of the time, I have nothing positive to say about the sixties or pop music in general.

[jaybee]

*

To be honest...I'm not sure if the Paul conspiracy is a manufactured conspiracy like - say - the Flat Earth theory .... to play with people's minds and at the same time make 'conspiracy theories' seem extreme and silly.... so the real conspiracies can hide behind the scoffing disbelief of the majority - ??


The Beatles and their music were the backdrop to my early life and teenage years - so I would say that wouldn't I :)... if Tavistock manufactured the whole thing then it was a very exciting PSYOP - :Angel:.... even if young people were being lured away from the traditional family - and trust me I have suffered the long term consequences of being a child with divorced parents - a split home + wrecked childhood in many ways and I absorbed an (unstable?) model for future decisions.... which has come back to bite me..... but.....everything has a price + I still loved (love) the music and the vibe... who ever composed it and whether Paul is the original Paul or not - (I, personally think he is) .....


John did talk about Tavistock at some point later in his career, after the Beatles split and no doubt 'they' wanted to manipulate the WHOLE situation if 'they' could - how much they did I really couldn't speculate on here, but I think perhaps the whole Beatle's Thing ran away from them - took on a life of it's own and they were left trying to capture and imprison something ethereal.....


Me and my brother were allowed to stay up late to watch the Beatles top the bill on Sunday Night at the London Palladium on the telly (1963 when I was 9 ).... it was really exciting.....

The Beatles - From Me To You [Sunday Night At The London Palladium, United Kingdom] (2:15 - audio with still pic - Live, Television: Sunday 13/10/1963)

vMvclflz7wU


I could make this post long but I won't go off the main topic - like I remember when the Media all reported on a hairdresser saying they heard the Beatles talking about taking LSD and the public were quite shocked - John Lennon being shot in New York 1980 was the most shocking of all...

Did someone else write all the songs ascribed to Lennon and McCartney.... or might their dabbling with drugs and the Maharishi have contributed to the change in a lot of the work....?.....

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

For anyone who has a good AI face-matching tool (to see if two different photos are likely to be of the same person), this might be a fun exercise. (I've not tried this myself, but I do trust my eyes. As many have said about this kind of thing, once you 'see it' it's very hard to 'UNsee it' ever again. :))

https://avalonlibrary.net/Bill/The_Many_Faces_of_Paul_McCartney_1.jpg

https://avalonlibrary.net/Bill/The_Many_Faces_of_Paul_McCartney_2.jpg

I have indeed done this before (here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1312560&viewfull=1#post1312560), and here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1312642&viewfull=1#post1312642)) -- compared various Paul images. I always got a match. But I took up the challenge. AI-comparison tools are getting better and better, so what do they have to say now??

I located a decent tool (https://www.faceshape.com/)for this purpose, though the results do show it's not very great at determining the subject's age. But that's not too relevant.

First, I put its algorithm to the test by giving it two faces that look the same but belong to two different people. Could it be fooled?

Doppelgängers.

1023238180039008258

What does it have to say about these two dead-ringers?

54130

Result: 48%
In other words not the same person.

These two remarkably similar gentlemen met on a random flight.

660005167337730048

What say you?

54131

Nope. 41%
It's not the same person.

What about Will Ferrell and his double? They are incredibly alike.

54133

That's a negative. Only 58% similarity.
It's not the same person.


*****
It's reasonable to conclude, for this exercise, that the algorithm is perfectly solid. It is not easy to fool.

Benchmark established. So what about Paul?

First, the "biological Paul" as purported and accepted by proponents of the Faul theory -- alongside his replacement from about 1969.

54132

100% Confirmed
It's the same person.

Here's another, of Paul ten years apart, 1964 and 1974.

54134

100% Confirmed
It's the same person.

If any doubt remained, let's go extreme. Paul McCartney from his pre-Beatles days (circa 1961), and Paul McCartney well into his dotage.

https://i.vgy.me/9C7ro5.jpg

100% Confirmed
It's the same person.

The same person.

If you told me Paul McCartney definitely did die in 1966, then the only way this conspiracy is possible is if Faul was a clone; that what we're seeing here is Paul's identical clone: they cloned him, and grew that clone to adulthood inside a single day. Next to the "Faul conspiracy" it's a more plausible theory.

In my post here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?19890-Paul-McCartney-really-is-Dead&p=1312642&viewfull=1#post1312642) I explained where this conspiracy came from. It began as a practical joke for a college campus newspaper; it went completely out of control. And it seems it continues to do so all these years later.

[just my opinion though] :beer:

[DNA]

If intelligence agencies can co-op and use your phone for surveillance then patching a program to ignore the single most popular case this program would be used for isn't out of the realm of consideration for me.
It's kind of like how I don't trust ufo videos anymore too easily manipulated.

I trust my eyes and the eyes of experts.
I trust my research.
Music from the sixties and pretty much all pop music is not just fake, it's propaganda.

[norman]

I think the issue on the table right now is not about Paul being switched. It's about the Beatles ( with their songs) being part of a Royal Society/Tavistock social engineering operation.




I posted this elsewhere but I was stretching the purpose of that thread to breaking point ( even though it was a thread I started myself ).

Does the Gateway Arch at St Lewis look anything like a rainbow to you ?

Oh, and check out the Rolling Stones backstage video, with sheep and possibly a chicken in the shower room back stage !




NVv7IzEVf3M

"Tuesday's on the phone to me"

following the sacrifice of Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and J.P. “The Big Bopper” Richardson

https://www.historynet.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Winter-Dance-party-Minn-658x1024.jpg

Tuesday Weld (born Susan Ker Weld; August 27, 1943), was made high priestess of the age in 1959 and the St Lewis Arch was commissioned at the same time ( completed in the mid 60s ). The arch is a ritual site, and a portal.

https://haleysharpe.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/GA_MAIN.jpg

https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/2/tuesday-weld--jack-nicholson-in-nyc-bettmann.jpg

t1Jm5epJr10

mAyj9q2quYc
I've never seen sheep in the shower room back stage before
https://youtu.be/eE6xsdQXI2Y?t=63

https://i.vgy.me/IgzOB8.jpg


Listen to the story here. I don't know it's all true, but it fits the rest of what I've been learning.

https://podbay.fm/p/cosmic-peach/e/1661166050?t=1946


The Weld family has a very long and kaleidoscopic history in England.

[Mike Gorman]

Most of the people commenting about 1960's music on this thread are musical illiterates, there was a proportion of manufactured pop music, but a lot of it was pure creative expression, blues/jazz expositions and poetic exploration: just because you are a philistine does not mean all 60's music was a psyop: grow up and move on to something worthwhile in your life: Paul McCartney did not die and be replaced by some MI6 plant, I think my irritation with this thread means I need to stop reading it. Thank you.

[DNA]

Most of the people commenting about 1960's music on this thread are musical illiterates, there was a proportion of manufactured pop music, but a lot of it was pure creative expression, blues/jazz expositions and poetic exploration: just because you are a philistine does not mean all 60's music was a psyop: grow up and move on to something worthwhile in your life: Paul McCartney did not die and be replaced by some MI6 plant, I think my irritation with this thread means I need to stop reading it. Than:laughs:k you.


Paul Harvey 1965
3 min video

jnPE8u5ONls

[Mike]

I want to say this is ridiculous, and I think it likely is, but I first have to confess to not reading anything on the thread except for a few bits here and there.

I'd have to start from page 1. So maybe it's my laziness preventing me from reading it, and maybe me calling it ridiculous is just my way of justifying my laziness. Not sure. But I'm still pretty sure it's ridiculous!:)

Chris likened one of the Beatle researchers to Michael Salla, and without knowing much about this conspiracy, this is how it feels to me. It feels like a LARP sort of. It feels like entertainment. It's sort of like listening to John Leer - it's great fun but it requires some part of you to wade into credulity all while voluntarily relinquishing some of your common sense. In other words, it's like watching a good movie. And I love movies, so I imagine I would enjoy diving into this Paul conspiracy a little, but I'm just too damn far behind at this point.

I'm no Beatles savant, but I've read quite a bit on the Beatles and listened to their music on a perpetual loop since I was a boy (my dad played it in the house). I've heard both John and Paul talk extensively about their early writing sessions while skipping school, how they arrived at certain lyrics, who wrote those lyrics, and so on. There's a video out there of John breaking down all his songs, identifying what the inspirations were, where he was when he received those inspirations, what bits Paul or George might have contributed, etc etc etc. I'll see if I can find that video. I've seen Paul do same. Both John and Paul are hyper aware of what their contributions were to a specific song, right down to the smallest detail.

Loads of vids out there of George Martin too, discussing in deep detail the intricacies of the Beatle songs, how they created certain sounds, when the lyrics arrived, who wrote the lyrics, and so on.

We live in a crazy world, and I'm always surprised to find out it's actually crazier than I previously thought it to be...BUT, it would be nearly impossible (in my mind) for John and Paul to not have written those songs.

Edit to add: here's Paul breaking down his best songs, for what it's worth. John's video is proving harder to find, but I'll try to track it down later:
u97_inloBmY

Also, human beings, we're nodes in endless networks. If Paul was replaced, we can be confident that John, George, and Ringo knew..along with George Martin. Not to mention Paul's immediate family. All those people would tell people, and those people would tell even more people, and so on and so forth, and there'd be a web of people out there talking about this somewhere. No one can keep that kind of secret. But I've never seen or heard these people before..just rumors and innuendo

[Kryztian]

I want to say this is ridiculous, and I think it likely is, but I first have to confess to not reading anything on the thread except for a few bits here and there.

Well, that is quite honest and a reasonable perspective to have. One can not research every topic and one can't have a definitive opinion on everything. But you are entitled to a gut feeling, as long as you don't pretend to be an expert, and as long don't deride others who are presenting information and research which you yourself have not given any time to. But there have been some people on this thread (not recently) who feel that their un-informed, un-reserached opinion is so much better than yours, which would be fine if they just quietly left the room, but they need to hang around and belittle everything else you say without doing any research or critical thinking of their own.

I too have said "this is ridiculous." I've said it about 9/11 truth, I've said it about Ufology, and, I've said it about the "Paul Is Dead" theory. I was once talking to someone, in a general way, about conspiracy theory. To make a point I needed to think of a conspiracy theory that was so off the wall and was obviously false and thought for a moment, and then I remembered the "Paul Is Dead" theory. It seemed like the perfect example of crazy hysterical fake idea. You had the mass hysteria of Beetlemania going on, and I imagine that when the idea the "Paul is Dead" reached many Americans in the summer of 1969, their response and their decision to believe or disbelieve the idea was purely an emotional choice, not based on reason or evidence.

I can't remember exactly when and why I changed my idea about this theory. It was probably around 2016-17, and at that time, I accepted the idea that Paul had a car accident, and the other Beatles wanted to continue the group, and they didn't want to upset Paul's fans, some of whom might commit suicide because of their grief, so they agreed to accept "Faul" (or "Faux Paul") into their group as a replacement. But I no longer believe that is what happened.

About 2020 I listened to Michael Hall interview Tina Foster who presented a different, but quite compelling, researched, picture of what happened, backed up at times by hard science, and at others by a careful analysis of historical facts. I ordered her book, read it cover to cover. There is no one fact in the book that can prove what happened, but there are hundreds of little facts that when put together paint an absolutely clear picture that

the Paul McCartney we knew up to the summer of 1966 and the Paul McCartney who emerged back in the public in a Life Magazine in November 1969 are very different people.


there was a lot of "public relations" starting in the Fall of 1966 to convince us that everything was "completely normal" with the Beatles, when obviously, that was not the case.


there were very strange changes in the lives of all the Beatles that began in the Fall of 1969. The comraderie of the group was shattered and in a few years later they were all completely alienated from each other.



We live in a crazy world, and I'm always surprised to find out it's actually crazier than I previously thought it to be...BUT, it would be nearly impossible (in my mind) for John and Paul to not have written those songs.

Agreed absolutely!!! In my version of the story, in Tina Foster's version of the story, they did indeed write their own songs. They may have had a stock pile of songs that had not been completely and/or performed in 1966, and many of the songs that appeared after 1966 onward attributed to Paul may have been from that batch. Perhaps they did get some extra help with song writing after 1966 - but I think that would have come from someone who was sincerely talented, trying to write good music for Beatles in their style, and not by some Illuminati Satanist encoding diabolical messages into the music to lure the worlds young people into a mad dance of drug infused depravity. At the same time a few of their songs are a lot darker, and that could be a reflection of what they were going through.


Chris likened one of the Beatle researchers to Michael Salla, and without knowing much about this conspiracy, this is how it feels to me.

The thing about Salla is, he is often discussing the same topics as other reasonable, rational ufologist. But he doesn't add to the body of factual and/or scientific research, he doesn't add to the critical thinking on the subject. He takes very questionable data and repackages it to make it sound like absolutely unquestionable fact. He tells a very compelling story that gets him more "oohs", "aahs", "likes", "subscribes" and high fees at over priced conferences and book sales. But he isn't very interested in the real pursuit of the truth. I think the same is true of Richard Syrett - he creates a compelling story but really isn't interested in researching the names, dates, facts, contradictions, technological capabilities of the time, scientific analysis, logical contradictions, etc. I don't know if he is in this for the money or he just likes to hear himself speak on the radio, but he isn't doing the hard work to separate the wheat from the chaff. I could same the same for Thomas Uharriet, although Uharriet at least has the decency to admit his books are fiction. And Syrett's main sources of information for his interview are ... fiction books .... which he improves upon by ... dreaming up more fictionesque ideas.


Also, human beings, we're nodes in endless networks. If Paul was replaced, we can be confident that John, George, and Ringo knew..along with George Martin.

Indeed, the "Paul died in a car accident story" may have been made up to make the others go along with the plan. They may have felt guilty that they were pulling off a fraud, which may explain all the "clues" they left in record albums and song lyrics.


No one can keep that kind of secret.

A lot of great mysteries of the world have been kept because people kept secrets. They might have been given a carrot, or they might have been threatened with the stick. I think Heather Mills (Pauls second wife, divorced) has dropped some hints "If you only knew". George Harrison did an interview in Australia where he kept talking about "Faul" - the name rumored to referred to "Faux Paul" or Paul's replacement - it seems like an innocent mistake on his part, but strange. There are so many more oddities I can't remember them all.

[Kryztian]

I think the issue on the table right now is not about Paul being switched. It's about the Beatles ( with their songs) being part of a Royal Society/Tavistock social engineering operation.


The title of the thread clearly is "Paul McCartney really is Dead." That is, for most of the last 13 years, what we have been discussing here.

You are on to another topic. If that is what you want to discuss, please start another thread.

[norman]

I think the issue on the table right now is not about Paul being switched. It's about the Beatles ( with their songs) being part of a Royal Society/Tavistock social engineering operation.


The title of the thread clearly is "Paul McCartney really is Dead." That is, for most of the last 13 years, what we have been discussing here.

You are on to another topic. If that is what you want to discuss, please start another thread.

The heated fall-out was about the 60s cultural revolution.

[Open Minded Dude]

I would normally not believe it. However: There is one "kind of" Smoking Gun.

That is the fingerprint story. How to debunk this?

You could say that the police authorities were negligent and sloppy in their work and e.g. confused the fingerprints or whatever.

But is this likely? Even in the 60s, when they did not have the forensic capabilites they have today, the authorities involved (Germany, Interpol, Japan) would not be so inaccurate in their work.

The facts of the 'story' are not disputed if I understand it right (meaning: it is 100% certain that Paul McCartney was held by the authorities and giving the fingerprints each of the two times, etc.), right? So one cannot approach it from that angle either.

So I have to ask again, how to debunk that one? Leaves me scratching my head.

Smoking Gun, if you ask me.

[Bill Ryan]

Smoking Gun, if you ask me.Another one, just maybe. In the final 45 seconds of this informal 2016 interview (more like an impromptu recorded conversation in a pub :)), Denny Laine (ex-Moody Blues, who later played with Wings and who knew all about this entire deception), is asked what it was like playing with Billy Shepherd 'instead of Paul McCartney'.

The friend who asks the question says he's 'scared' to ask it, and that it can be cut from the recording if needed. But Denny, who's already had a few drinks, tells him to go ahead with anything at all.

Denny then just laughs, referring to Billy Shepherd as Billy Shears. The inference seems clear that Denny is confirming the reality of McCartney's replacement, though he doesn't explicitly say so. (As it's at the very closing seconds of this 20 minute video, it has to be very possible that Denny went on to say a lot more, which was indeed not recorded.)

I was unaware that this recording existed (this is part of Mike Williams' extensive research), so it definitely seems worthwhile to preserve it here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du1y1QyfHIc

[Bill Ryan]

Smoking Gun, if you ask me.Another one, just maybe.
[ ... ]But here's another real smoking gun.

This is the transcript from 1:38:15 in this Mike Williams 2016 interview with Sofia Smallstorm, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV39RmErX14) which might be THE very best introduction to the entire thing. (I've edited it slightly for easier reading, omitting some repetitions, hesitations, and so on.)

~~~
The fourth biggie is a paternity suit that started back in 1982 after he had had a relationship with a lady by the name of Erika Hubers when he was in Hamburg, Germany.

We're talking about the biological Paul now, not Bill Shepherd. This is the biological Paul, so this goes back to 1962 and it was pretty long relationship, 18 months. It wasn't a one night stand, and the relationship was well established. They were pictures of the two of them together.

So out of that relationship, a daughter was born. Her name was Bettina Hubers, and back then child support was agreed to by the real Paul McCartney. And Shepherd, as the character Paul McCartney, continued the child support obligations put in place by biological Paul McCartney.

However as we know with child support, it runs out after a certain age. You don't have to make any payments any more. So Bill Shepherd had to submit DNA, and the DNA did not match. I guess they're matching Billy's DNA against Bettina's DNA.

Now this became very very sticky, because Erika Hubers, the mother, was very very adamant two things happened.

One was, she was looking at pictures of Bill Shepherd, And she said, that's not Paul McCartney. She was making a lot of noise about this, and then what happened was he signed a document. And because he's right-handed, he signed it with a right-handed lean or tilt. She looked at the the signature, and said, it's not his signature.

So then what happened was they had to go to a Beatle Museum, and they compared the handwriting. They concluded it was not the same handwriting. The signatures did not match. So he was sued for fraud.

I tried to find out what happened with that case. I’m not sure if it's still active or not. What Billy Shears says in the book is that he's gonna let the DNA do the talking, that's it. So based upon that position, she's out of the money because the DNA is not going to match. He even says in the book: Bettina, if you're reading this, now you understand.

[Tintin]

Smoking Gun, if you ask me.Another one, just maybe.
[ ... ]But here's another real smoking gun.

This is the transcript from 1:38:15 in this Mike Williams 2016 interview with Sofia Smallstorm, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV39RmErX14) which might be THE very best introduction to the entire thing. (I've edited it slightly for easier reading, omitting some repetitions, hesitations, and so on.)

~~~
The fourth biggie is a paternity suit that started back in 1982 after he had had a relationship with a lady by the name of Erika Hubers when he was in Hamburg, Germany.

We're talking about the biological Paul now, not Bill Shepherd. This is the biological Paul, so this goes back to 1962 and it was pretty long relationship, 18 months. It wasn't a one night stand, and the relationship was well established. They were pictures of the two of them together.

So out of that relationship, a daughter was born. Her name was Bettina Hubers, and back then child support was agreed to by the real Paul McCartney. And Shepherd, as the character Paul McCartney, continued the child support obligations put in place by biological Paul McCartney.

However as we know with child support, it runs out after a certain age. You don't have to make any payments any more. So Bill Shepherd had to submit DNA, and the DNA did not match. I guess they're matching Billy's DNA against Bettina's DNA.

Now this became very very sticky, because Erika Hubers, the mother, was very very adamant two things happened.

One was, she was looking at pictures of Bill Shepherd, And she said, that's not Paul McCartney. She was making a lot of noise about this, and then what happened was he signed a document. And because he's right-handed, he signed it with a right-handed lean or tilt. She looked at the the signature, and said, it's not his signature.

So then what happened was they had to go to a Beatle Museum, and they compared the handwriting. They concluded it was not the same handwriting. The signatures did not match. So he was sued for fraud.

I tried to find out what happened with that case. I’m not sure if it's still active or not. What Billy Shears says in the book is that he's gonna let the DNA do the talking, that's it. So based upon that position, she's out of the money because the DNA is not going to match. He even says in the book: Bettina, if you're reading this, now you understand.



Great :thumbsup:. Thanks for this and I do now recall this from quite a way back - great reminder.

One of the other things that leaps out and is relatively mundane compared with the DNA scrutiny (above) is the photography: the 'replacement' is taller than the original Paul. Notwithstanding your very interesting tale about Angi (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?118487-A-story-I-ve-never-told-about-my-not-quite-human-friend&p=1495936&viewfull=1#post1495936) and her growing overnight I sincerely doubt that 'Billy' is any kind of human-ET hybrid

[Bill Ryan]

Now in the Avalon Library. :thumbsup: (This is the second book by Thomas Uharriet. I can't yet find the first.)

Billy's Back! Selections from The Memoirs of Billy Shears

https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Thomas%20E.%20Uharriet%20-%20Billy's%20Back!%20-%20Selections%20from%20The%20Memoirs%20of%20Billy%20Shears.pdf

https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Thomas%20E.%20Uharriet%20-%20Billy's%20Back!%20-%20Selections%20from%20The%20Memoirs%20of%20Billy%20Shears.pdf

[HopSan]

Now in the Avalon Library. :thumbsup: (This is the second book by Thomas Uharriet. I can't yet find the first.)

Billy's Back! Selections from The Memoirs of Billy Shears

https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Thomas%20E.%20Uharriet%20-%20Billy's%20Back!%20-%20Selections%20from%20The%20Memoirs%20of%20Billy%20Shears.pdf

https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Thomas%20E.%20Uharriet%20-%20Billy's%20Back!%20-%20Selections%20from%20The%20Memoirs%20of%20Billy%20Shears.pdf

The 'first' book is an earlier edition, nothing important.
Latest is the most correct and informative.

For anyone interested of Faul etc., Mike Williams (SageofQuay) is an authoritative master:

https://odysee.com/@sageofquay:0

(Odysee-button does not seem to work.)

[Bill Ryan]

Now in the Avalon Library. :thumbsup: (This is the second book by Thomas Uharriet. I can't yet find the first.)

Billy's Back! Selections from The Memoirs of Billy Shears

https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Thomas%20E.%20Uharriet%20-%20Billy's%20Back!%20-%20Selections%20from%20The%20Memoirs%20of%20Billy%20Shears.pdf

https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Thomas%20E.%20Uharriet%20-%20Billy's%20Back!%20-%20Selections%20from%20The%20Memoirs%20of%20Billy%20Shears.pdf

The 'first' book is an earlier edition, nothing important.
Latest is the most correct and informative.Yes. For anyone just dropping into the thread who doesn't know about this book, it's purported to be the highly significant ghost-written memoir of Paul McCartney's longstanding replacement (after the original Paul died), one of whose names is Billy Shears.

[Sue (Ayt)]

Now in the Avalon Library. :thumbsup: (This is the second book by Thomas Uharriet. I can't yet find the first.)

Billy's Back! Selections from The Memoirs of Billy Shears

https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Thomas%20E.%20Uharriet%20-%20Billy's%20Back!%20-%20Selections%20from%20The%20Memoirs%20of%20Billy%20Shears.pdf

https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Thomas%20E.%20Uharriet%20-%20Billy's%20Back!%20-%20Selections%20from%20The%20Memoirs%20of%20Billy%20Shears.pdf

The 'first' book is an earlier edition, nothing important.
Latest is the most correct and informative.Yes. For anyone just dropping into the thread who doesn't know about this book, it's purported to be the highly significant ghost-written memoir of Paul McCartney's longstanding replacement (after the original Paul died), one of whose names is Billy Shears.

I haven't been following this thread a lot, but of course have heard the stories of the Paul replacement over the years.

I skimmed the ebook above quickly, and the claim that Billy Shears was also Vivian Stanshall jumped out at me. This alone effectively negated the rest of the book for me, as Ki Longfellow, Vivian's wife, was a long-time internet forum friend since 1995. They also have a daughter together. Ki told stories all the time about her and Vivian's life together and mourned greatly at his death in 1995. Both Vivian and Ki (an author in her own right) were creative geniuses, and for this person to take credit for Vivian's work is clearly a hoax.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Ki_Vivian.jpg
Vivian and Ki, may they RIP

[Open Minded Dude]

One argument in favour of "Paul is alive" from the field of physiology: The venous system. Yeah, you heard it right.

Interesting. I think we need to keep an open mind. Does it prove that Paul did not die? Seems convincing at first look, if you ask me.

Or how could a 'Faul' have faked a protuding left hand vein? Certainly it's not possible with plastic surgery. The pics also do not seem to be manipulated by modern tech since they are 'vintage' and existed for a very long time this way.

pBBfAj5XMe0

What do you think of his argument?

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Good video. I'd never thought of looking at veins before.

I found the image from the video. This was taken during rehearsals for the Beatles' appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show, Feb 8th, 1964
56015

This picture is of Paul in 2018, from Far Out Magazine.
56016

[ExomatrixTV]

Paul McCartney Died in 1966: Here's the 'Proof':

2L8Q0t0CuKA
Paul is dead. Apparently... Paul McCartney is at the centre of one of the greatest conspiracy theories in music history. Believers think the real McCartney died in a car crash in 1966 and was replaced by a double names William Shears Campbell (Or Billy Shears). Let's examine the 'clues' from the Abbey Road album cover, songs played in reverse and even ears changing shape!

[Journeyman]

I've not thought of the whole Paul is dead thing in a long while, but this video from Mike Williams appeared and it was interesting to see his use of AI (Grok in this case) to help in comparing photos.

1W5h8RwcHcY

At the risk of spoilers, I transcribed some of Grok's findings:


Bottom line probability estimate (purely from the visual morphology in your uploaded set): "85=95% likelihood that we are not seeing a single continuous individual across the full collection...

…. In plain terms, No, we are almost certainly mot seeing one person playing Paul McCartney across these images.

The data strongly suggests at least two (and likely more) distinct facial structures = one early angular (core) one mature / softer (group B) plus several edge cases and heavily masked / extreme variants that don't align with either."

I don't have experience with using AI and others may have an input on how the prompts used could perhaps influence the results?

[Le Chat]

George Harrison did an interview in Australia where he kept talking about "Faul" - the name rumored to referred to "Faux Paul" or Paul's replacement - it seems like an innocent mistake on his part, but strange.

To my ears it's someone who has manipulated the interview to blank out the name Paul and insert the word Faul.

[Kryztian]

George Harrison did an interview in Australia where he kept talking about "Faul" - the name rumored to referred to "Faux Paul" or Paul's replacement - it seems like an innocent mistake on his part, but strange.

To my ears it's someone who has manipulated the interview to blank out the name Paul and insert the word Faul.

Here's the interview. The "Faul" part of the incident is in the first minute, and then the rest of the from beginning to end, ensues. He did use the name "Paul" correctly many times - it was just in these two incidents where he said "Faul".

O3e89asiSHc

[lunaflare]

I do not deny the premise of this thread, but after listening to the show, I did not notice a "Faul" as mentioned in the beginning excerpt.

[Kryztian]

I do not deny the premise of this thread, but after listening to the show, I did not notice a "Faul" as mentioned in the beginning excerpt.

Yes, that is what it is supposed to be. He mentioned "Paul" many times and "Faul" only twice in the inverview and that was during the middle of the interview, but that excerpt was moved to the beginning of this Youtube video.

This piece of info shouldn't convince you of anything by itself, but it is one of hundreds and hundreds of strange pieces of info that shows something is very wrong in the official story.