Paul McCartney really is Dead

[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.

Posted by norman (here)
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 !

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NVv7IzEVf3M

"Tuesday's on the phone to me"

following the sacrifice of Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and J.P. “The Big Bopper” Richardson



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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=t1Jm5epJr10

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mAyj9q2quYc

I've never seen sheep in the shower room back stage before
https://youtu.be/eE6xsdQXI2Y?t=63




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]

Posted by Mike Gorman (here)
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.

Paul Harvey 1965
3 min video

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

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

Posted by Mike (here)
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]

Posted by norman (here)
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]

Posted by Kryztian (here)

Posted by norman (here)
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]

Posted by Open Minded Dude (here)

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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Du1y1QyfHIc

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Open Minded Dude (here)
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, 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]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Open Minded Dude (here)
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, 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 . 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 and her growing overnight I sincerely doubt that 'Billy' is any kind of human-ET hybrid

[Bill Ryan]

Now in the Avalon Library. (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/Tho...y%20Shears.pdf

[HopSan]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Now in the Avalon Library. (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/Tho...y%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]

Posted by HopSan (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Now in the Avalon Library. (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/Tho...y%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)]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by HopSan (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Now in the Avalon Library. (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/Tho...y%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.


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.

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


This picture is of Paul in 2018, from Far Out Magazine.