Paul McCartney really is Dead

[Journeyman]

Posted by Matthew (here)

Posted by Journeyman (here)
...
Finally, a point made well here: https://pieceofmindful.com/2022/09/2...-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

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.

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
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]

Posted by Arcturian108 (here)
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]

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by Arcturian108 (here)
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]

Posted by jaybee (here)

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by Arcturian108 (here)
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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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.


Facial comparison says:


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.


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


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.


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]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
Lots of clips, sequences and soundbites, with little to no context. That is entirely misleading.

... but maybe not the number of toes! (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.

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."

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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)]

Posted by happyuk (here)
"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.

[Jambo]

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!

As for the current one...
Imagine if you knew individuals in the music industry who'd worked with certain people, and you were told that some individuals in the music industry were the most litigious beings. That they took no nonsense from anyone commenting on the slightest negative comments against them, and would sue at the drop of the hat.
I'm guessing people would avoid mentioning truthful experiences with them, if negative.

* Cough * I think Paul McCartney is lovely

[Losus4]

Posted by Ewan (here)
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—

[happyuk]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

Posted by happyuk (here)
"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.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Losus4 (here)
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—

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.

[DNA]

Posted by Ewan (here)
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]

Posted by happyuk (here)
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.

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."

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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]

Posted by DNA (here)
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.