Paul McCartney really is Dead

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Mike (here)
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.

[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.

[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...source=sh/x/im

And here Ringo is even in the front.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

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



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

Source: https://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]

Posted by Arcturian108 (here)
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]

Posted by Mike (here)

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]

Posted by greybeard (here)

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.

[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.





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.

[Bill Ryan]

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

http://pictriev.com/fc.php

Only 69%.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.



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..

[T Smith]

Posted by Star Mariner (here)
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.

Attachment 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..

Attachment 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]

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by greybeard (here)

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.

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