Indeed, there has been a lot of discussion, sometimes even emotionally charged heated debate over whether or not Paul McCartney died in November 1966. It’s become a widespread claim that Paul McCartney was replaced right after his alleged death.
If he was replaced, then his replacement, “imposter Paul McCartney” has managed to pull-off one of the greatest hoaxes of all-time in a conspiracy!
-The Paul is dead (PID) theory must rank up there as one of the biggest “conspiracy theories,” comparing it with the Apollo moon landings, JFK’’s assassination, or 9/11… cover-ups
-Is it true?
To those of you who are new to this, then the idea that Paul McCartney was replaced might sound quite ludicrous.
However, it may not be as far-fetched as you think it is when you really look into it.
Consider the following quote:
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable called ‘cognitive dissonance.’ And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with that core belief.“
-Frantz Fanon, philosopher and writer (1925-1961).
It is not the author’s intention to take sides; however, this article puts forward a number of questions that need answering. Remember, whether you have dismissed the idea that Paul McCartney was replaced with scoffing condemnation, or agree that “imposter Paul McCartney” does exist, questions are the answers.
Based on much investigative research into the PID theory, here are just 12 questions that need answering.
1.It has been said that there are many clues indicating that Paul McCartney died in November 1966, as symbolized in the Beatles albums: Artwork or images symbolizing his death, backwards recordings, or subliminal messages… etc., but, while one wonders why there are so many of these clues, couldn’t it be said that they prove nothing?
2.Following on from the above, couldn’t these so-called clues simply be part of an elaborate hoax, a brilliant marketing ploy just to get people’s attention and talking…?
3.Consistent with the above philosopher’s quote, aren’t there too many people allowing their emotions to get the better of them, having the emotionally driven temerity, relying on their own two eyes to make condescending judgements instead of carefully examining the physical evidence put forward by those claiming Paul McCartney died and was replaced?
4.Anecdotal evidence may have value, but isn’t it better to try and find hard evidence, which would make the PID theory either more convincing or easier to be debunked?
5.Two Italian forensic photography scientists, Carlesi and Gavazzeni, got together to disprove that Paul McCartney was replaced. Using advanced facial recognition software, instead of debunking the claim, much to their shock, they found the opposite. -They concluded pre-1966 Paul was a different person to post-1967!
Their findings got published in an October 2009 edition of WIRED Italia.
Comparing pre-66 Paul to post-67 Paul, a number of precise differences have been observed. To summarize:
(a)Post-67 Paul, has an elongated jawline and skull. This is invariant. In other words the related skull shape, angles and proportions, should have been the same as pre-66 Paul if it was the same person.
(b)Ear shape analysis, another stable feature, shows differences between pre-66 Paul and post-67 Paul.
Ear shape is accepted as definitive forensic evidence in court cases, like fingerprints. Studying the portraits (see above picture in this article. Top and bottom left pictures are pre-66 Paul, while the top and bottom right are post-67 Paul), noses between the two also look different…
These defining differences were also used to compare the other three Beatles. When comparing pre-66 and post-67 John Lennon, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, no differences were detected. It was therefore concluded that each of these individual Beatles were the same people.
-The question: How do all the nay sayers, those who don’t think that pre-66 Paul McCartney wasn’t replaced get around this “hard evidence?”
6.On the subject of fingerprints. There was an incident at Narita airport, Tokyo, Japan, where Paul McCartney was busted for marijuana possession. His fingerprints had already been stored in records because of a time when he was arrested in Hamburg, Germany, in 1960, for playing a prank. He set fire to a condom and was accused of attempted arson
However, the Japan fingerprints did not match those from his 1960 Hamburg days. This caused an upheaval. His detainment was extended at the Japanese airport as the authorities considered him to be an impostor. This incident was soon smoothed over by high-ranking British diplomatic authorities. Paul McCartney was then released.
Doesn’t this provide more evidence that he is “impostor Paul”?
7.Pre-66 Paul lived with a German girl called Erica Hubers for a year. Erica allegedly claimed that they had a daughter named Bettina. However, the lawsuit was dropped because when the allegation came out, much later, post-67 Paul submitted his DNA which was deemed to be different to the daughter’s, I.E., no paternal match. The daughter swore that post-67 Paul’s DNA was different because he was an impostor.
Was he an impostor simply because he was pre-66 Paul’s replacement?
8.A simple solution, to settle the PID theory once and for all would be to do comparative DNA tests between Paul and his blood brother, Mike McCartney (stage name McGear). Considering both brothers have refused to give their DNA will the claim that Paul was replaced ever be concluded?
9.Some say that Paul McCartney was cloned, but wouldn’t this have too many snags, having difficulties remembering who he was, and what about the differing fingerprints and DNA…?
10.What about the photographs and videos that have suggested alleged “impostor Paul” to be wearing latex to help with his disguise?
-Have a look at this interesting video:
Sage of Quay™ – Paul Is Dead – 1989 Italian TV Latex Fail
-By Mike Williams’ Paul Is Dead Channel
11.What about the number of witnesses recalling a 1966 TV announcement that a Beatle died…, but the following day it was wiped off the media face of the Earth (coverup)?
12.Will post-67 Paul; William Campbell or Billy Shears, or whoever he’s called, make a deathbed confession, that he’s an impostor that fooled the world?
Finally
I wrote this article because like many people, I have avidly followed the Beatles and Paul McCartney’s music over the years. I want to know the truth of what’s been going on with Paul McCartney and the other Beatles.
Further, I want to understand how deep and wide the deception runs…