Is Paul really dead?

[_jay_]

Originally Posted by orbandsceptre27

Well he and the rest of the group indirectly gave away over one hundred clues through their songs and on Beatles album covers. Maybe John would have said something eventually if he had lived.

Many people are starting to believe that the "death and rebirth" of Paul, referred to by the Beatles was metaphorical.

I am generally very slow to believe anything. On the other PID thread Edit stated "belief limits ......... learning is no longer possible" - a very valid statement. This PID conspiracy comes across as one of the most unbelievable and obscure of conspiracies, but from examining it in detail I have no doubt McCartney was replaced and the man currently claiming to be Paul is a fraud - two completely different men.

The present "Sir Paul" is also heavily into the occult. Here is an interesting snipit from the John Todd interviews (recorded in the 1970`s). Todd claimed to be a high ranking Illuminati defector of the American Collins family. (Svali and Leo Zigami are two present day defectors who are also worth listening to - see on You Tube).

Todd eventually became a Christian (a bit too fundamental for my liking)and started to speak about the Illuminati pagan origins and rituals of rock`n roll. The full interview can be found on Google Video. This is a 10 minute segment from You Tube.



http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3_p14nClVTA

I have looked at these links and info and much more including those from Didilander below, I shall say interesting theory but it is ripped apart, it is a story of which some peeps want to believe when in actual fact it is a 'go home folks, nothing to see here' .

[curly]

i think i believe this one

[diamond dogs]

In the late 1960s there was a popular theory that Paul McCartney was dead and replaced by an imposter. The Beatles had announced that they would never tour again, and many people wanted an explanation for this - the fantastical Death Theory was the one favoured. The theory suggests that Paul McCartney died in a car accident on the 9th November 1966, and was replaced by someone, named Billy Shears, who had surgery to look like Paul McCartney.

" target="_blank">

" target="_blank">

Comments
On 29 June 1966, The Beatles arrived in Tokyo

This was in Japan at the Buddacan (sp?) theater in 1966. No monitors. Beatles were used to not being able to hear themselves in concert because of the screaming. Japan was much different. Polite audience until end of songs. They actually had good sound systems and could hear themselves!!! The whole concert was color video taped. Much ahead of the times!!!

This is still the Paul we know today couldn't reach the hgh notes then and still can't...surely if he was replaced he would have gone into oblivion after they split up....

[hagbard_celine]

Originally Posted by rossus

o my god, the real petra died?

Oh, dear. I'm sorry I should have broken the news to you more gently.

(Correction: The BBC revealled Petra's replacement with Petra II in 2002, that's not 16 years but 40 years after the incident!... and they say they couldn't sit on the fake moon-landings!))

[mercuryrapids]

Originally Posted by hagbard_celine

(Correction: The BBC revealled Petra's replacement with Petra II in 2002, that's not 16 years but 40 years after the incident!... and they say they couldn't sit on the fake moon-landings!))

And who says conspiracies and secrets can't be kept, eh? That should go to the top of the list, ahead of The Manhatten Project and The Tuskagee Experiments!

[orbandsceptre27]

YouTube

YouTube

Paul McCartney.

YouTube

YouTube

"Sir Faul."

[orbandsceptre27]

YouTube

YouTube

Pink Floyds conceptual "Dark Side of the Moon" album aligns with "Wonderful Wizard of Oz" - Coincidence? (Does a bear shit in the woods)
(I`ve always wondered where the red brick road led - many people only see the yellow brick road, why?

YouTube

YouTube

Alan Parsons was sound engineer on Pink Floyds "Dark Side of the Moon" and worked with the Beatles at Abbey Road on many of their songs. It doesn`t take a genius to figure out what he was saying here.

YouTube

YouTube

[planetsadhana]

I have seen dark side of the rainbow before , found it a bit creepy for some reason.

I have heard Dave Gilmour saying in an interview , that the wizard of oz/darkside of the moon link was nothing he knew about

[orbandsceptre27]

Originally Posted by _jay_

I have looked at these links and info and much more including those from Didilander below, I shall say interesting theory but it is ripped apart, it is a story of which some peeps want to believe when in actual fact it is a 'go home folks, nothing to see here' .

"Interesting theory but it is ripped apart" ........... ehh, where??


This is much more than just a story about one band member being replaced. Maybe you should do more research, alot more lol.


(To anyone who has just come across this thread, some of the opening vids have either been pulled {about five in all}, or there`s a slight difficulty with the layout - I`ll try and get them back up. See "Paul is Dead - The Rotten Apple" from iamaphoney on You Tube).

[who elsie]

All very interesting stuff and not beyond the bounds of possibility, but I do have a problem with it. If I'm right, according to the 'Paul is dead' theory, the original Paul is said to have died in 1966 or 67. If that is so, then the double-ganger that replaced him wrote some of Pauls best songs - Hey Jude, Get Back, Let it Be, Back in USSR etc. These all came in the period 67-70 and were all in the style of pre-67 Paul, but just showed a greater maturity of song-writing, consistent with a maturer Paul McCartney. If the replacement took place after about 1972/3, yes, I can believe it could be someone else, because the quality nose-dived from there on. But, as it stands, I'm not convinced.

[curly]

I think i've read too much stuff about songwriters writers saying they don't know where their inspiration came from to believe they aren't manipulated so they can manipulate us.Pete townsend,bowie an endless list of rock stars,townsend i think said he wrote his best lyrics whilst under the influence of drink and drugs and hadn't a clue where some of them came from.If there is any truth in the connections with crowley/the occult then there is no reason why the replacement couldn't be manipulated as well.I like my music but i am beginning to think all the important stuff all your legends are all manipulated but i don't know what the beatles were used for and john lennon was supposed to be a good guy but i can't be bothered to look into it too much as i don't like them but you could get lost in this stuff forever.

[2013]

Originally Posted by who elsie

All very interesting stuff and not beyond the bounds of possibility, but I do have a problem with it. If I'm right, according to the 'Paul is dead' theory, the original Paul is said to have died in 1966 or 67. If that is so, then the double-ganger that replaced him wrote some of Pauls best songs - Hey Jude, Get Back, Let it Be, Back in USSR etc. These all came in the period 67-70 and were all in the style of pre-67 Paul, but just showed a greater maturity of song-writing, consistent with a maturer Paul McCartney. If the replacement took place after about 1972/3, yes, I can believe it could be someone else, because the quality nose-dived from there on. But, as it stands, I'm not convinced.

apparentlythe tavistock institute wrote the lyrics to the beatles songs .If this was the case not saying i accept that but then it would explain the lyrical content and style remaining the same .One more thing not particualrly about paul mcartney but song writing in general lots of people are good with words and could come up with good lyrics they just dont get the oppurtunity to be heard .so to say the stuff he wrote is genius and no one else could do it doesnt ring true

[who elsie]

Originally Posted by 2013

apparentlythe tavistock institute wrote the lyrics to the beatles songs .If this was the case not saying i accept that but then it would explain the lyrical content and style remaining the same .One more thing not particualrly about paul mcartney but song writing in general lots of people are good with words and could come up with good lyrics they just dont get the oppurtunity to be heard .so to say the stuff he wrote is genius and no one else could do it doesnt ring true

I don't know too much about the Tavistock institute, but it's beginning to sound like the Shakespeare scenario all over again, with commissioned teams of writers producing the work, that has a huge global market. Intrigueing thought. But looking back (not that I can remember,personally!) it was still very much Paul that was the driving force behind much of what the Beatles did. You can see that on the Let it Be film, so I still feel it's pushing credibility to suggest it was the replacement doing all this.

[orbandsceptre27]

I`ve heard the rumours about the Tavistock Institute also. Yes who`s to say that much of The Beatles material was not produced by "outside" forces.

Also Lennon could have written most of The Beatles later songs which became so influential in pop music history with "Faul" having little or no imput. The McCartney name would have to go on many of these tracks with Lennon, so as not to arouse public suspicion (Thus Lennon`s "How do You Sleep at Night" {you c..t}). This is all speculation of course and perhaps we`ll never know the truth.

One things for certain, The Beatles used backmasking throughout much of their material. Lennon himself admitted to the use of subliminal messages to give fans a deeper understanding of "what was going on". (I will try to put up more "iamaphoney" vids to emphasise this, but he may remove them - anyone can view these on You Tube - "Paul is Dead/The Rotten Apple." Many groups such as Led Zeppelin, ELO and even Frank Zappa are known to have used the technique. The most common reason given by artists for these hidden messages is to connect intimately with their fans. However it seems many followers of Aleister Crowley (occult magician of "The Golden Dawn") believe that by speaking backwards one has more influence over people. Thus record sales are greatly increased and messages are passed directly to the subconscious mind without the listener being aware.
Example saying "I am he" backwards = eh m i - EMI the famous record label.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/stairway

As I`ve stated in a previous post many great rock n roll groups of the sixties were hugely influenced by Crowley - The Beatles, The Stones, The Doors and Led Zeppelin but to name a few. But WHY???


Backmasking is a simple enough technique. First speak the line (you want in your song backwards) into a dictaphone. Now play the line backwards - you will get a jumble of garbled sounds. However it is almost always possible to get words to fit the sounds. Put these new words into your song and hey presto, when you play it backwards - there`s your message!

Many of The Beatles backmasking messages are of Paul McCartney being killed and the other three members mourning him. Some refer to a car crash - "Paul is Bloody/ we used to sing with him." WHY AREN`T THERE REFERENCES TO ANY OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GROUP DYING??

Beatles Backmasking - YouTube

Beatles Backmasking - YouTube

[orbandsceptre27]

paul is dead - the rotten apple 17 E - YouTube

paul is dead - the rotten apple 17 E - YouTube

paul is dead - the rotten apple 67 O - YouTube

paul is dead - the rotten apple 67 O - YouTube

paul is dead - the rotten apple 64 a - YouTube

paul is dead - the rotten apple 64 a - YouTube

[orbandsceptre27]

If people can be fooled by this guy..........................



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7512387.stm

[curly]

I always thought the early days paul had a good sense of humour and was likeable in films etc but the one i grew up watching in the seventies was a bit of a miserable git with not much of a sense of humour.Not important just an observation.

[supertzar]

I seriously considered this for a few days once. I don't think Paul is dead. For starters it seems extremely unlikely that anyone would be able to mimic Paul's particular way of playing the bass and have a perfect match for his voice and look just like him.

[2013]

Originally Posted by supertzar

I seriously considered this for a few days once. I don't think Paul is dead. For starters it seems extremely unlikely that anyone would be able to mimic Paul's particular way of playing the bass and have a perfect match for his voice and look just like him.

Wil smith in the movie Ali is just like him and thas just for one role ,so imagine if yuo had to take on that role all the time .Also its possible with the sucess of the beatles that they used lookalikes which we know they did so one of them would be prefectly placed to take over .Many good impressionists out there again with just one person to imitate it would be a lot easier .

[orbandsceptre27]

Originally Posted by curly

I always thought the early days paul had a good sense of humour and was likeable in films etc but the one i grew up watching in the seventies was a bit of a miserable git with not much of a sense of humour.Not important just an observation.

Thats a very valid point Curly. I`ve been looking at McCartney`s mannerisms` in relation to the other three Beatles, and especially with John. In many of the interviews up until 1966 Paul does most of the talking. In the 1966 "last" interview we can see Paul is quite confident, yet jovial. He and Lennon are completely at ease with themselves and one could nearly finish the others sentences`. They are very natural together as are George and Ringo.

Interviews after this are dominated by John. Paul seems like a "deer caught in the headlights." None of the accustomed confidence or roguery and there appears to be very little connection between himself and John. I know people will say - "come on man they fell out!" It`s not even that, it`s like they just don`t know each other. They had taken LSD prior to `66 so it`s not that they weren`t doped up long before this period.

Someone can act all they want but you can`t fake familiarity and it`s just not there! "New Paul" also droops his mouth quite a lot when he speaks, something the original McCartney never did. Physically he has a slightly larger frame, a longer head, green/grey eyes and was much thinner than the original Paul.

I believe people are so conditioned looking at "Faul" all these years they just won`t sit back and and examine the "stone cold" evidence. People become so familiar that we just grow a blind-spot and think we know these musicians. "I knew that Paul McCartney, he`s that bloke from the Beatles with the mop top" - we know jack-shit! The more you observe, the more you will see. These are all little things, but when you keep chipping away it`s the little things that show up the lie in the end.


"One and one and one is three - got to be good lookin cause he`s so hard to see."

Paul is Dead: Folklore 101 (2 of 7) - YouTube

Paul is Dead: Folklore 101 (2 of 7) - YouTube