Beatles Conspiracy: Did Paul McCartney die in 1966 and get replaced by a double?

[Moretorque]

Why do you go on and on, anybody now with half a brain knows you don't trust anything that comes from Britain.....

[TruthSeeker]

Worth a listen. Tina Foster purports that all four Beatles were replaced.

[Winston]

How can all four Beatles be replaced? Lennon looks like the same guy in every photo, as my videos above show. His facial features all match. The only one in question is Paul. The other three are not disputed. I think the theory that all four were replaced is disinfo to discredit the whole theory. Does Tina have any good evidence that all four were replaced?

Tina Foster's voice is really cute and adorable. She sounds like a freethinker too. Why can't we date or marry AW like that? Btw I think she said she's from Texas too. Virtually every friendly AW I've met or talked to has been from Texas. Never from California. That can't be a coincidence. So different US states do make a difference.

Tina Foster's blog about the Paul vs Faul conspiracy is:
http://plasticmacca.blogspot.com

[gsjackson]

Got time only to look at conspiracy theories that implicate TPTB as perps, and have an effect on public policy. I generally subscribe to what public duende had to say about the usefulness of constant exposure to such esoteric knowledge, if knowledge it be.

As for Macca and this theory -- could be. it's been around for almost 50 years. There are an awful lot of McCartneyesque songs out there have been produced since 1966, including one of the most famous that mentions "Mother Mary" (McCartney's mother). So I guess I'd be inclined to look first at the contention that he's still alive and on the down low.

[Cornfed]

There are an awful lot of McCartneyesque songs out there have been produced since 1966, including one of the most famous that mentions "Mother Mary" (McCartney's mother). So I guess I'd be inclined to look first at the contention that he's still alive and on the down low.

But isn't the theory that Paul 2.0 (Billy Pepper) wrote a lot of Beatles songs anyway? Continuity in songwriting would make perfect sense.

[gsjackson]

There are an awful lot of McCartneyesque songs out there have been produced since 1966, including one of the most famous that mentions "Mother Mary" (McCartney's mother). So I guess I'd be inclined to look first at the contention that he's still alive and on the down low.

But isn't the theory that Paul 2.0 (Billy Pepper) wrote a lot of Beatles songs anyway? Continuity in songwriting would make perfect sense.

Could be. I'm not informed enough to have an opinion, but Winston asked me to weigh in. Is it Bill Pepper or Billy Shears?

[Winston]

gsjackson, you don't need to spend much time with this. Just look at the video clips above that I posted. They are only a few minutes each and won't take up much time to watch at all. This isn't a difficult topic. If you have more time, check out the 90 minute documentary above I posted called "The Last Testament of George Harrison". It's very interesting and mind blowing and sounds like an authentic account, even if it's not Harrison's voice.

[Winston]

There are an awful lot of McCartneyesque songs out there have been produced since 1966, including one of the most famous that mentions "Mother Mary" (McCartney's mother). So I guess I'd be inclined to look first at the contention that he's still alive and on the down low.

But isn't the theory that Paul 2.0 (Billy Pepper) wrote a lot of Beatles songs anyway? Continuity in songwriting would make perfect sense.

Yes of course the second Paul wrote a lot of songs and performed a lot of solo hits too. He was in a band called Wings too. He is a great singer and musician as well. But that's not the point. The point is that he was secretly replaced and the public didn't know about it until 1969 when the media discussed it after fans began noticing all the hundreds of clues they kept putting out. The voice and accent between Paul and Faul are different too, if you listen to their clips.

For example, listen to this line by line comparison of the song "Yesterday" sung by Paul vs. Faul. If you listen closely you can tell that the voices and accents are different, not just the key note. Thus they must be different people for sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpEpbUKgVCA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL1qCO04dpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7q6f7YeJj8

[Winston]

Check out this quick first appearance of Faul McCartney after the replacement was made. You can see right away that it's a different guy and he's wearing a mustache to try to hide it. His voice is different as well.

[Winston]

I listened to some of Tina Foster's interviews. She's really smart and has a very cute voice.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... ina+foster

According to her, Paul was assassinated and replaced because:

1) The Beatles were becoming a loose cannon and could not be controlled. They were not following the program that the Tavistock Institute wanted them to follow to serve the elite.
2) Paul did not buy the official explanation for the JFK assassination and was gonna do a song piece for Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgement" documentary contesting the US government's lone nut theory. That would have made the JFK conspiracy very popular.
3) The Beatles did a song called "Tax Man" that was very anti-government.
4) The Beatles began speaking out against the Vietnam War. Not supporting it anymore.
5) The Beatles were singing love songs and happy songs that were uplifting people. That's not what the elite wanted.

So since they were too popular and not doing what the elite wanted, they had to go. They assassinated Paul and replaced him with a more cooperative double. The other Beatles, she believes, were eventually replaced too. That's why they looked different on the Sergeant Pepper Album. Perhaps they were outraged at Paul's Assassination and refused to cooperate and so they all had to go.

Here is a round table discussion with Tina Foster, Jim Fetzer and Nick Kollerstrom. Each of them have a different variation of these events.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISQ8TGSOZXU

Also listen to Mark Devlin and Mike Williams talk about "The Memoirs of Billy Shears" which is likely to be Faul's confession of the story of his replacement of Paul McCartney. Due to legal and contractual purposes, Faul is not allowed to reveal the secret directly, so he had to use historical fiction to reveal it indirectly and unofficially. It's really a really deep discussion. They know a lot of details about this case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAwFPsFUp4M

To get "The Memoirs of Billy Shears" book or ebook, go to:

http://www.billyshears.com

It's 666 pages in 66 chapters. lol

[Winston]

Could john halliday be the original paul mccartney who was replaced in 1966? See this comparison video and decide for yourself. There does appear to be some resemblance. Also, halliday worked as the tour guide at McCartneys childhood home and greeted visitors there for a few years. So if he is the original mccartney then it would be a classic case of being "hidden in plain sight". Lol

[TruthSeeker]

Yes, Paul was replaced but the replacement was actually better, more talented. I mean look at all those brilliant songs we have from Paul McCartney (William Shears). John Halliday would never have been able to produce them.

The song Let It Be speaks to this. Let it be meaning leave it alone. They all knew Paul was replaced.



Pete Best was also replaced by Ringo Starr. This sort of thing was often done.

So it's not all bad that the original Paul was replaced.

[Winston]

November 30, 1969. F. Lee Bailey hosts this TV special to uncover whether Paul McCartney died in 1966 or not.
Welcome to this RKO TV special from November 30, 1969
"Paul McCartney, the complete story told for the first and last time.".



Btw I'm still on the fence about this issue. I watched a number of videos of Paul between 1966 and 1970 and some of them do look like the original Paul while others look like a different person. So I am confused as to what to believe. One interview where Paul definitely looks like a different guy was the LSD interview where he admits to using LSD. In that one his head is elongated and his face looks a bit different, and his personality is different too, far more arrogant and aloof than the original Paul was. In that LSD interview he looked like a very different person. Check it out if you're interested. However I've seen clips where he looks like the original Paul too, down to every facial detail. So I don't know what to believe.

[Winston]

Website dedicated to the original Paul McCartney, who left us in 1966.

https://jpaulmccartney.com/

In these clips from the 80s he does look like a different person than the original Paul McCartney if you look closely at his face and voice, which according to those in Liverpool, is not a Liverpool accent like the original Paul's accent was. That's very telling.



Another website about the book "The Memoirs of Billy Shears" which is an alleged confession by Paul McCartney's replacement, written through his encoder, Thomas E. Uharriet. It contains some comparison images that will knock your socks off and make you think "Holy cow! How did I miss the differences all this time? That's a different face and person!" lol. For those of you who still doubt, this may change your mind. Look at the comparison images below up close and you will see that they definitely look like different people.

https://www.memoirsofpaul.com/the-memoi ... lly-shears

https://www.memoirsofpaul.com/the-lyric ... he-present

More info about the book:

http://www.billyshears.com/

[Winston]

Keep in mind that besides the 400 known Beatles album clues and backward masking of the Beatles records that indicate that Paul McCartney died and was replaced, there is some compelling evidence too. See the list of evidences I have collected below. Cumulatively, it's very compelling and strong when taken as a whole.

1. Faul is 3 or 4 inches taller than Paul. You can see it in his photos with Jane Asher. The original Paul was the same height as her, whereas Faul is a lot taller. That is physical hard evidence that cannot be refuted.

2. If you look closely at videos of Paul in 1966 and Faul in 1967 you can easily see that they are two different men. For example see the 1967 LSD interview he did where his face looks very different and elongated and his personality was aloof and arrogant, not like the original Paul at all. His voice and accent also sounded deeper and different. It could also be that a double was used in that interview because the real Paul refused to promote LSD which his handlers ordered him to, in order to promote drug use and degenerate society.

3. The original Paul could not play piano but he was great with the guitar, whereas Faul was proficient with the piano but uncomfortable with the guitar, which you can see in his videos. Faul looked very comfortable playing the piano, but awkward with a guitar. This is a major INVERSE between the two.

4. Paul preferred to live in London. But Faul preferred Scotland and called it his home, even though he supposedly grew up in Liverpool.

5. Paul was originally from Liverpool. But Faul does not have a Liverpool accent at all, according to Liverpool locals who listened to his voice. Faul's voice and accent are different from the original Paul if you listen closely to it. He has more of a Scottish accent than a Liverpool accent.

6. One of Faul's ex wives, Heather Mills, said that Faul had a big secret that the world could not handle, but was afraid for her life so she had to keep it secret. She said this overtly on TV. You can see many copies of it on YouTube.

7. According to rumor, Faul was arrested in Japan at the airport for having marijuana in his luggage. The Japanese government jailed him for 9 days because his fingerprints did not match the orginal Paul McCartney. The UK government had to work with Japan to get him released.

8. Paul's daughter and her mother in Germany sued him for extra child support in a paternity case. When the court had Faul take a DNA paternity test, it turned out negative. The mother and daughter claim that the person who took the test was an impostor. This indicates that Faul was the original Paul.

9. After Paul became Faul at the end of 1966, the Beatles no longer played before a live audience anymore, suspiciously. That cannot be a coincidence in light of all the above. It obviously means that they could not do live concerts anymore or else people would see that Paul was a different guy. Plus Faul was not accustomed to the guitar yet and needed time to practice and blend in with the band. Instead, they played only in the studio and they all grew their hair and beard long, to try to mask the change in Paul's face and height. It can't be coincidental. Given all the above, it makes sense and must have been part of the cover up. It's what you would do too if you were them, given the above circumstances. As they say, everything happens for a reason.

10. After 1966 the Beatles never played their original songs anymore. They started playing completely new songs. Usually singers are glad to sing their best hits from the past. But the Beatles did not, with the exception of the "Yesterday" song perhaps. This means that they could not sing their original hits like "Help!" and "She Loves You Ya Ya" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand" because it would be too noticeable that Paul was a different person. So they couldn't do that of course. In light of the above, it cannot be a coincidence and is understandable. If you were them, you would have had to do the same.

11. When Paul became Faul, he soon broke up with Jane Asher and got together with Linda Eastman, as if that was his real partner, not Jane. Again, taken alone, this may not mean much, but taken in conjunction with all the above, it's obvious why if he was in fact a different man by then.

12. Faul never went to his father's funeral too. Now this on its own may not mean much if it's on its own, since some people have bad relations with their parents. But taken in conjunction with all the above, it makes sense because if that's not even his real father, then he would not go to his funeral of course.

13. When John Lennon died in 1980 and Faul was interviewed about it, he was apathetic and nonchalant and only said "It's a dreg" with no emotion behind it. That's an odd thing to say if you lost your childhood best friend. Again, taken alone, this doesn't prove anything, but taken with all the above, it obviously means that they were never childhood friends because Faul is a different man from Paul. And they were probably not very close even when they worked together, and probably didn't like each other that much.

14. In several Beatles documentaries, when Faul enters the room, you can hear his close friends and associates call him "William" or "Bill". See Mike Williams from Sage of Quay or Tina Foster from the Plastic Macca blog for the exact names of these documentaries where you can find these clips. There are 3 or 4 of them. This is because his real name is William Shepherd or Bill Shepherd, according to the book "The Memoirs of Billy Shears."

15. There is a clip where Denny Lane is being interviewed (he played with Faul in his Wings band) and asked about William Shepherd. He then alludes to Faul's true name "Billy Shears". Hence he indirectly implied that Faul is Billy Shears, thus giving us a cryptic clue.

Now taken alone, each one of these might be able to be explained away, but taken cumulatively, they definitely constitute a strong case that Paul was replaced, if you think about it and look at the big picture. So it's not one or two things, it's cumulative evidence.

For more info, look up Tina Foster's blog Plastic Macca at http://plasticmacca.blogspot.com