Paul McCartney really is Dead

[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.

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, 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, here, and finally here).

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]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
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.

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, 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, here, and finally here).

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]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
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/sho...=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/2022/09/2...-sage-of-quay/ it can be useful to examine a pheonomenon such as 'Paul is Dead' even if one doesn't buy into it...

[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]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
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, 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 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]

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

[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]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

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, 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]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
The Beatles, Mind Control and the Culture Wars

Source: https://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]

Posted by Kryztian (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
The Beatles, Mind Control and the Culture Wars

Source: https://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]

Posted by DNA (here)
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 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.)

Posted by onawah (here)
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]

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

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, 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 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' 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"

[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)]

Posted by jaybee (here)
.

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]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

Posted by jaybee (here)
.

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.