What I hear is Paul/Faul say "Hello Neil." Then someone (Neil?) says "How are you?". Paul/Faul then looks at George and says "Hello George" and George says "Very well Bill" as if he thought Paul/Faul asked how he was.
From hearing them both compared elsewhere on Utube, as a singer, I observe that 'Billy' uses more of a jazz style, swooping up to his notes, whereas Paul hits them squarely, more like a choir boy. The 2nd performance was more sensitively delivered, also. I'm still somewhat on the fence over all this, but if it is ifor real then Billy truly does have a shadow hanging over him: Paul's.
Nope. He technically joined the quarrymen with John Lennon already being in it and it eventually became the Beatles. All this “evidence” is taken so strongly out of context and blown so far out of proportion just let the legend live.
The name of fake Pauls next group was Wings, a little joke about Billy Shears and his sticky out ears. Also a nod to Paul having angels wings. Proof indeed that Paul is dead. (well lets see if any conspiracy guys pickup on that)
Paul McCartney as in Paul McCartney joined John Lennons band the quarry men back in the 50s who were already established as a band. It’s really that simple.
Okay, seeing this, now it's all confirmed to me, aside from few inconsistencies and the Beatles songs being played backwards (to which lacked evidences to me). Now, with the one from Mal Evans (especially his diary), May Pang's statement, Beatles' Philip Norman, and Emilio Lari (a Photographer and one of Paul's closest friends), and now with Heather Mills, now I'm convinced Paul has been hiding something shady, and yes, I do believe that's it (that the original Paul was dead, and was replaced), many people close to Paul and those who knows him personally, including Francie Schwartz (the woman he used to cheat to from Asher) with a statement calling him Billy, heck, even Olivia Harrison (George Harrison's wife) called him by that name, once. Think of why Paul's exes never talked to him again? George had stayed friends with Pattie Boyd (despite of George's cheating on Maureen), John and Cynthia, despite of their feuds in the past, still had contact with each other, with regards to Ringo and Maureen, it's a destructive one (due to George's infidelity), I understand if Ringo never had any contact with her, he felt betrayed, but for sure, she and Ringo had some closure or did met up with each other before she died, but with Paul and his exes, I don't know why they don't want to have contact with him? Or doesn't have contact with him? (Both Jane and Dorothy (Dot Rhone) are very much alive). The same for his brother, Mike, does he have any contact with him, still? I believe in Heather Mills, why? Sure, she's been painted badly by the media and public, but think of it, considering all of Paul's spouses: Linda Eastman and Nancy Shevell, those who are just silent and doesn't talk too much, I think he prefers those kinds of women simply because they couldn't speak out the truth, meanwhile with the likes of Heather Mills and to the lesser extent, even just a girlfriend, Jane Asher, they're too much outspoken to leak whatever Paul's been hiding, heck, Asher had even publicized her break up with Paul in the television. I believe her, I think Paul just paid her silence, after all, Paul had bought those tragic Linda Tapes (recorded by Peter Cox with Linda stating her domestic abuse at the hands of Paul himself) to swept it under the rug and kept it from the public, so it wouldn't damage his reputation (understandable to him, but if admitting his flaws and making an explanations, since it's been years since she died, for sure, he could've released it to the public), but he had decided to pay the silence of that evidence. I believe in this, after all, The Beatles, like what I've said before in the other video, were made up of shady things, so Paul dying and replaced aren't surprising. Thank you!
Okay, I know this is a different song but here's The Beatles in 1963 playing 'Till There Was You' live (their concert in Royal Albert Hall), he does look at his guitar while playing: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uDxCg1nxUko.htmlfeature=shared Maybe the reason why Paul doesn't look that much on his guitar back then is because a.) They're miming a song (even in their concerts, yes, because who could've noticed? Their concerts were always overshadowed by the wild, screaming fans). b.) The camera was not focused on Paul all the time, hence, we may not get to see him looking down (but in that Royal Albert Hall concert, the camera was focused on him, so we see his full movements). C.) Depends upon a song that he's playing (although this is something I'm uncertain about). I don't know, I'm still torn about this, there are some aspects where yes, makes them unusually different from one another, but there are some inconsistencies in those comparisons. I don't know, it's hard to judge because only the closest people to Paul would know if he's still the same guy or not (what I mean here are the people who knows him since from the beginning, in their Quarry Men days or way before that), because if one only knows Paul in his Beatle days (granted the fact that they're groomed by Brian Epstein on how to act in public), it would be hard to know him personally, because what we see he does on camera is what he may not do off stage. If there's one theory I do find plausible is the fact that The Beatles were actually a manufactured band by the Tavistock Institute (a social experiment), this is due to the coincidences I've seen: it's been said that The Beatles didn't wrote their songs (some pointed here that 'Yesterday' was based on a 19th century Neapolitan song), and it's been said that Theodor Adorno wrote their songs and the fact that he died in 1969 (the time that the Beatles had broken up) makes my eyebrows raise everytime, it's just coincidental, and the fact that The Beatles went to America 4 months after JFK was killed (the country was still mourning at the time), then suddenly it had the whole America focused on them and forgot JFK's death, and not just that, but the fact that the British invasion happened immediately in America where all British entertainment became highly successful in America (even the TV shows like The Saint and The Avengers and even James Bond) not long after The Beatles arrived, and the fact that they've overshadowed any bands at that time, as in all, they've literally dominated the world like no one can stop them, now get me? It's just all seems suspicious to me, and the less said about The Beatles involvement in their advocacy regarding the Vietnam War (to which JFK was heavily opposed into). Don't tell me that all the records they've made, all these so called 'revolutionizing music', the non stop sales and chart dominations for a very long time, even the songs released when they're no longer touring still topping the charts were all naturally happened, it's just all impossible, especially for a time where internet is not yet existing, don't tell me "it's because of their talent", there are many bands who were just as talented as The Beatles at the time, or maybe even more talented than them at that time, and made catchy songs as The Beatles did, but why they've never made it big? It's like the society at the time only focused on The Beatles like they're the only band in the world at the time, and again, those groundbreaking records, it's impossible that they've been all achieved by one band, the same for the 'ahead of its time sound' in their songs (especially from 'Revolver' onwards) where they've got that sound? It's all seemed magical isn't it? But if one may look into the reality of things, considering it's 60s, and considering that this was not done by several (other) musicians, but just one band, is all the more dumbfounding and mysterious. The Beatles had the strongest marketing at the time, but if EMI are the ones behind the marketing, then why they didn't do the same for other bands who were under them? Let alone Brian Epstein could've done it all alone, I think there's a more bigger organization behind the more wider marketing of The Beatles (even down to the merchandising which are everywhere too, at the time, none of the bands got the same merchandising as The Beatles at the time, not even Elvis Presley), and that led to John Lennon declaring that they're even "bigger than Jesus", and that was the evident as to how they're really big at the time to the point where Beatlemania almost became a religion, now tell me, are there nothing suspicious to it? Think, better think, my friend. It's all getting fishy to me, like there's something shady. And about their musicianship, if they're really the great musicians the world is telling us, then why the Decca Records rejected them? (Decca rejected The Beatles in favor of The Tremeloes), if they're really a bunch of talented lads who could do great, musically, then why Decca chose The Tremeloes over The Beatles? Doesn't makes sense to me, now, I think what the people are saying about The Beatles being the early version of The Monkees are not that far off from the truth (even the allegations of session players in the recording studios playing for The Beatles, the 'Hey Bulldog' music video? Again, it's a music video, it may have been mimed), sometimes I couldn't help but to believe it and see through the blurred glasses. That theory, in my opinion, are more plausible than the Paul is Dead theory (although I could see some clues that the pre-1966 and the post-1966 Paul are different, but it's a bit inconsistent, to say the least, now the Tavistock Institute theory, I think there's more truth to it, because there were many aspects in the Beatles Era where it's a bit suspicious). And think about this: George Martin, The Beatles' producer, had been taught of playing oboe by Margaret Asher, the mother of Jane Asher (who happened to be Paul's girlfriend at the time), see the connections? It's like a small world, isn't it?
I don't see any reason to think paul is dead but some people do see evidence, so, i can't really judge because i really think the moon Landing was filmed somewhere on earth.
I love a good conspiracy too, but this "paul is dead" conspiracy literally has no merit. Then again, im not that surprised because they're are people who really think the earth is flat. 😅
Полнейшая хрень. Когда же закончится эта спекуляция вокруг Пола? Сейчас 21 век. Нельзя провести ДНК-анализ? Так нет же создают видео-хрень и собирают под ним тучу хрень-комментов. Вы все hommo sapiens или ...?
I am absolutely fascinated by this. From where I'm standing it looks like silly urban legend scooped up by cointelpro and chaos successor programs and exploited to the hilt to discredit people who would speak on suspicions about the disturbing FACTS that John Lennon and George Harrison were involuntarily dosed with LSD in 1965, then supplied with massive amounts of it, precisely as the spook agencies did back then to brainwash. Then Lennon was addicted heroin by Ono in 1968 to keep him under the thumb of handlers, breaking up the Beatles, and after the quack shrink Janov had him for 6 months in 1970 Lennon only barely managed to make Plastic Ono Band, and Imagine in Spring of 1971, and never anything important again. A counterculture genius completely neutralised. Finally the damning and terrifying similarity of the brainwashed man who perptrated John Lennon's late 1980 murderer to the man who shot Ronald Reagan in spring 1981 and the copious evidence of shadow conspiracies behind both shootings. But wait, you want me to look at this thing where McCartney's performance is not identical in 1965 to the other a decade later in 1976? Sure yeah that's way more valid & important. Thank you for your service intelOverlord, or stooge of intelOverlord, whichever you are.
