View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Paul McCartney was replaced by a double in 1966, experts say

Discuss Other Topics not related to the Paranormal or Conspiracies (within reason of course).

Paul McCartney was replaced by a double in 1966, experts say

Postby Scepcop » 02 Aug 2010, 23:22

I heard that recently two Italian forensic experts announced in Wired magazine that based on photo and voice analysis, there is a high probability that the Paul McCartney before 1966 and after are different people, meaning that he was replaced by a double. Here is an article about it in English.

http://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... l-was.html

Here is a voice comparison between Paul and Faul's (the imposter) songs. It shows a different imprint in the voice harmonics from computer analysis. You can listen to the clips yourself here.

http://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2009/1 ... rints.html

In the David Icke forum, there is a huge mega thread about this topic.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102300

What do you think? Is it possible the world was duped?

I also heard that several of McCartney's ex girlfriends before 1966 claim that the Paul after 1966 is not the same man they dated.

Wow. Fascinating.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: Forensic science proves Paul McCartney was replaced in 1

Postby ProfWag » 03 Aug 2010, 00:11

Don't forget that because Paul isn't wearing any shoes on the cover of the Abbey Road album, that confirms your story as that symbolizes a dead person in a coffin who also don't wear shoes.
Oh, and don't forget about the music group Klaatu! Wow, very spooky. Really. It is.
http://www.klaatu.org/klaatu1.html
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Forensic science proves Paul McCartney was replaced in 1

Postby NinjaPuppy » 03 Aug 2010, 06:06

I remember all the hubbub about if you play some song on one of the albums, you can hear, "Paul is dead! Paul is dead! Don't forget it's about the same time Paul's chipped tooth suddenly got fixed. I am the walrus....goo goo g'joob.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Forensic science proves Paul McCartney was replaced in 1

Postby Scepcop » 03 Aug 2010, 06:41

ProfWag wrote:Don't forget that because Paul isn't wearing any shoes on the cover of the Abbey Road album, that confirms your story as that symbolizes a dead person in a coffin who also don't wear shoes.
Oh, and don't forget about the music group Klaatu! Wow, very spooky. Really. It is.
http://www.klaatu.org/klaatu1.html


Haha. Just visit those links in the first post and make up your own mind, rather than denying that no secrets exist in the universe. lol

Anything is possible and there's nothing wrong with asking questions and looking at things.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Forensic experts say Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966

Postby Scepcop » 03 Aug 2010, 06:42

Check out this voice harmonics comparison between Paul saying "Hey" before and after 1966.

Image

Also, listen to this short chilling interview with Heather Mills, Paul's ex wife. She claims that she knows a secret about Paul so devastating that it would endanger her life and that people would not be able to handle it. What could she be referring to?

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Forensic experts say Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966

Postby Scepcop » 03 Aug 2010, 08:50

Check out these side by side comparison photos of an interview with Paul McCartney in 1966 vs. 1967.

Notice every aspect of the face. Look closely. Don't they look like obviously different people?


Image
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Forensic science proves Paul McCartney was replaced in 1

Postby ProfWag » 03 Aug 2010, 21:03

Scepcop wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Don't forget that because Paul isn't wearing any shoes on the cover of the Abbey Road album, that confirms your story as that symbolizes a dead person in a coffin who also don't wear shoes.
Oh, and don't forget about the music group Klaatu! Wow, very spooky. Really. It is.
http://www.klaatu.org/klaatu1.html


Haha. Just visit those links in the first post and make up your own mind, rather than denying that no secrets exist in the universe. lol

Anything is possible and there's nothing wrong with asking questions and looking at things.

Now where in my post do I deny that the original Paul isn't dead? I even added some info to support that theory. C'mon Scepcop, cut me some slack.
Whether I truly believe it is a different story, but nowhere in my post do I say that.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Forensic experts say Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966

Postby mr. mike » 24 Jan 2011, 07:02

I've heard these theories, and unlike the faked Moon landing or the two Oswalds I don't see who would gain from trying to fake Paul McCartney. Bands have had members die and continued to play (The Who, for example) or slowly disintigrated (from 1968 to 1970, The Monkees* went from four members to two, then stopped recording until the late 1980s.) George Martin had to find a guy who looked very much like PM, could play a guitar, and had a similar voice or could fake it for long periods of time. The odds are against all of it. With the two Lee Harvey Oswalds you have a far more serious reason for this doppelganger to exist, alleged records, a possible source for the fake, etc.; I've never heard of any relatives of a Paul McCartney look-alike calling the police or talking to the press because the guy went missing. And, yes, Scepcop I did look at the "Plastic Macca" blog and I wasn't impressed.

____________________________________________________________________
* Yes I know they were a pre-fab band, but the intersting thing was they carried on after their show was cancelled and their label support shriveled up.

No, I don't believe in the Two Oswalds theory either.
mr. mike
 
Posts: 33
Joined: 23 Nov 2010, 10:26

Re: Forensic experts say Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966

Postby NinjaPuppy » 24 Jan 2011, 22:00

The Monkees* went from four members to two, then stopped recording until the late 1980s.

I may not know much about two Oswald's or how to fake a moon landing but I knows about The Monkees and the Beatles. What has the Monkees got to do with the McCartney being replaced due to his so called demise? IMO, the Monkees and the Beatles are apples and oranges here.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Forensic experts say Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966

Postby ProfWag » 24 Jan 2011, 23:39

NinjaPuppy wrote:
The Monkees* went from four members to two, then stopped recording until the late 1980s.

I may not know much about two Oswald's or how to fake a moon landing but I knows about The Monkees and the Beatles. What has the Monkees got to do with the McCartney being replaced due to his so called demise? IMO, the Monkees and the Beatles are apples and oranges here.

Not to step on toes here, but what I think his comparison was is that just because members of a band leave (the Monkeys, Who, Stones, etc.,) doesn't mean the band doesn't have to break up. So, even if Paul had died, why could the Beatles not have gone on?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Forensic experts say Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966

Postby mr. mike » 25 Jan 2011, 00:24

That was my point exactly....I had a long reply but the site dropped me. Anyway, who is the fake Paul? If the real Paul McCartney is dead, where is he buried? If not, where are they keeping him? Were the relatives and friend of PM paid to keep silent, or were they threatened to keep their silence? Was it the same for the fake Paul? I don't remember reading of a long period in 1966 when Paul was out of the limelight. Who trained the fake Paul to act, play the guitar, and sing like PM? You can see, NinjaPuppy how the whole thing unravels if you ask enough questions. For this fraud to have carried on you would have a large number of people involved.....somebody has to talk sometime and not obliquely like in that hacked up youTube clip.
mr. mike
 
Posts: 33
Joined: 23 Nov 2010, 10:26

Re: Forensic experts say Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966

Postby NinjaPuppy » 25 Jan 2011, 03:27

ProfWag wrote:Not to step on toes here, but what I think his comparison was is that just because members of a band leave (the Monkeys, Who, Stones, etc.,) doesn't mean the band doesn't have to break up. So, even if Paul had died, why could the Beatles not have gone on?

Playing the devil's advocate here but if Paul did in fact die, obviously the Beatles did go on.

Back in the 1960s fame was directly connected to hype. If I did my research correctly, the urban legend or rumor that Paul was dead began circulating in the late 60s (1969) and not at the time of this supposed body double replacement in 1966. The claimed 'clues' for Paul's death came from the usual sources that are still unreliable today. They are the same as poor EVPs in ghost hunts where recorded sounds and voices can be mis-heard by human ears. "Paul is dead" heard on one album and "I burried Paul" on another. The 'Walrus' meaning death, yada, yada, yada. All the components of great speculation with none of the proof. I wouldn't doubt that these 'clues' were a great publicity stunt as John Lennon seemed to have quite a good head on his shoulders when it came to his fame and the hype. True or not, it sure did give the Beatles a shot in the arm in a time when the group was experiencing growing pains.

The video in question isn't exactly a documentary by what I would consider a reliable source and as far as Heather Mills commentary, this was made during some very nasty divorce proceedings with millions at stake here.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Forensic experts say Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966

Postby mr. mike » 25 Jan 2011, 04:21

I woulden't call them growing pains, it was more like a death rattle....the Beatles broke up in 1970; but yes I agree with the hype, and it kept growing throughout the 1970s as people hoped the band would get back together (even the producer of Saturday Night Live, Lorne Michaels, begged the ex-members to reform and play on his stage.) Beatlemania was no substitute. I can see where these theories take root; the band changed a lot between 1964 and 1968, with the key period of change being 1966-67. Why not have some sort of hidden incident being the catalyst for that change?
mr. mike
 
Posts: 33
Joined: 23 Nov 2010, 10:26

Re: Forensic experts say Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966

Postby NinjaPuppy » 25 Jan 2011, 04:57

mr. mike wrote:I woulden't call them growing pains, it was more like a death rattle....the Beatles broke up in 1970; but yes I agree with the hype, and it kept growing throughout the 1970s as people hoped the band would get back together (even the producer of Saturday Night Live, Lorne Michaels, begged the ex-members to reform and play on his stage.) Beatlemania was no substitute. I can see where these theories take root; the band changed a lot between 1964 and 1968, with the key period of change being 1966-67. Why not have some sort of hidden incident being the catalyst for that change?

IMO, 'Revolver' was when I first noticed a big change in the band. By Sgt. Pepper I lost interest.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Forensic experts say Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966

Postby ProfWag » 25 Jan 2011, 05:13

Since most of us love a good conspiracy or mystery, how about this one: The Beatles didn't break up until the '80s. They just went underground and formed Klaatu. Here's a sampling of their music (note the lack of credits...)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/recsradio/radio/B00027EFLQ/ref=pd_krex_dp_001_001?ie=UTF8&track=001&disc=001
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Next

Return to Off-Topic Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron