@@supernovic99 No, that's not true. I never noticed that Paul was replaced, and when I started seeing videos and podcasts on the computer that suggested that he was -- I watched them with an open mind. Maybe it is you who is seeing what you want to see.
@@user-rd4zq4pf2y he never changed. He might have changed his hairstyle and that's making it look like it's not him. There's actually a quora post showing his pictures before and after. His smile and the chipping of his front teeth all show he's the same guy. People are making these things up to hold their belief.
@@supernovic99 The first Paul at the beginning of the tape is interviewed with the other Beatles. He looks different from the next Paul, who is interviewed by himself and is talking about drugs. This second Paul has light eyes and his nose looks different. How come the Beatles stopped touring after 1966 and put clues in their music and album covers that Paul is Dead? I suggest you watch Sage of Quay podcasts and Plastic Macca (Tina Foster) podcasts. People like me are not making things up to justify our beliefs. I saw websites in 2017 that Paul had really died, and I spent years studying the podcasts, videos and read books. I have learned to see the differences in appearance between the two men and to notice the difference in their singing voices; although sometimes it is almost impossible. I am 100 percent sure that Paul was replaced. Sir Paul is always dropping hints that he is not the real Paul. If you were to watch more videos and podcasts and keep an open mind, you might be surprised to learn the truth.
@@user-rd4zq4pf2y Maybe if you read what i said with an open mind, YOU might be surprised to learn the truth. It's the same paul. FYI, eye colour can change for some people and can also change because of the light falling. I don't look the same i looked a few years ago. That doesn't mean i was replaced. Look at the smile and look at the teeth. In fact, the original paul as you call him has a really sharp canine and this fake paul as you call him also has the same canine in the same place even now. You can't change basic things like that
The tonality of the voice seems different, also the "you know" of the double always seems forced in comparison to the original Paul. The face structure is also off and the hair, the atitude is different, body language is also different ( the original is almost always comfortable in comparison to the other, which always seems defensive and easely irritated)
I think he lost some baby fat on his cheeks and his nose therefore became a bit thinner and looked longer. The voice is identical and so are the eyes and lips. He has a different haircut. I believed the conspiracy at first, but now I don't anymore. And people change, you know, physically and mentally too. But no, Paul is not dead. IMO.
Fred labour has admitted multiple times to making up william shears (billy shears) as a hoax for publicity www.parlia.com/a/billy-shears Aswell as photos of him side by side after 1966 and before being identical even up to freckles m.imgur.com/gallery/4XmqTd6 On top of all that...heres audio recordings from original recordings 1966 and before compared to recent live performances being almost identical www.audioforensicexpert.com/sir-paul-mccartney-is-not-dead/amp/ What more do you need?....john did not say "I buried paul" he says "cranberry sauce"...as for the album covers there are multiple takes of each album cover with different beatles even in the portions paul is in...its funny how a theory with so little evidence...built on speculation...and no proof that your double even exists...looney bin you belong sir
And the "walrus was paul" is complete gibberish...when john lennon heard teachers were having students analyze lyrics of paul and john he made alot of gibberish lyrics so people would try and make sense of complete gibberish as they did....john never said "I buried paul"....he said "cranberry sauce" and as for the difference in eye color paul has hazelnut eyes which appear more green or brown in different lighting and change with age...around middle age 25-40....and his ears just didnt change...yes he lost a decent bit of wait when he was partying alot in 67-68 and his cheeks got longer but that's it..
Paul Mc Cartney did not attend his fathers funeral despite being very close to him. Why? because he was already dead and it was Faul in his place. The real Paul would never miss his dads funeral.
He didn't attend because he's a Beatle, one of the most popular people in the world, if he attended his fathers funeral the media would have made a circus of it
@@dolier2802 Many celebrities were attending funerals without any media interruption (even in 60s and even as far as early as 50s), so why it would be different for Paul? (If he's the real Paul). I don't get the reasoning at all.
It sure did grow long because it was William "Billy" Shears who began impersonating Paul in 1967. It's been 50 yrs. This is why many people can't see Paul was replaced. Everyone is used to Sir Billy.
James Paul McCartney died in car crash on September 11 1966. Brian Epstein with the consent of the authorities at the time and the three Beatles, he decides to replace Paul with a right-handed session musician named William Shepherd. Everyone involved, including their families, vowed to keep everything a secret. However, The Beatles produced over a hundred clues about Paul's death in their albums and images. William underwent numerous cosmetic surgeries to resemble Paul. William is two inches taller than Paul, William has green eyes, William has a weaker and thinner voice than Paul, William has totally different manners. Musically, Paul was a genius, William is a weak musician.
It is amazing that people will argue until the cows come home that Paul is not dead but will not do any research to see the facts and then call other people names. They are too lazy to learn.
@@fleight9484 Paul McCartney murió en 1966, Billy Shears lo sustituyó, porque la banda de los Beatles perdió a uno de sus miembros más importantes. Paul compuso la mayoría de las canciones que tienen junto con John Lennon. La Banda de Los Beatles necesitaba un doble para que no se notara el impacto que produciría la falta de Paul. Lo que no me gusta, es que se engañe a la gente, que Billy Shears se haga pasar por el verdadero Paul. Hay muchas pruebas que aseguran que Paul McCartney murió en 1966. En las fotos de esos años se nota la diferencia. La voz, la estatura, el color de sus ojos, la forma de su rostro indica que no son la misma persona en 1965 que en 1966-1967. Todo esto esta documentado. Investiga. Vean este video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fkc7jE7ROo8.html
The thing that’s most noteworthy to me, besides the difference in face shape and pitch of the voice, is the willingness to engage with the reporter. Paul tends to give blunt, witty remarks and is much more concise overall, whereas Faul is very repetitious with his responses and just sort of tails off with his answers instead of the answer coming to a definitive conclusion.
There is no difference in shape face. He has high hair and a mustache, which makes his face look longer - and he might have lost a bit of fat compared to that one video (but not compared to other images of him in, say, 1963). Compare Lennon in the two periods; they look even more different. And: There is no pitch difference. The audio quality is different. And if you listen to other interviews and not just the one cherry-picked for this video, you’ll find Paul sounds just like before, with a gradually deepening voice over his life like everyone else. In terms of engagement with the reporter, you are comparing a 1:1 interview to sound bites from group press conferences in 1964. That’s not apples to apples. And let’s say he did start rambling more as he began smoking pot and got used to people hanging on his every word. So what? This is just … guys, try connecting more with people in your life. You’ll find it will fill the hole much better than conspiracy theories.
John's image changed more dramatically during the Beatles. Apart from a mustache in late 66 early 1967 and a beard for "Get Back", Paul's image was the most stable/strait-lace.
1968/69 John even lost muscle mass at how much weight he dropped, specially during his heroin use phase, he was miles away from the stocky, healthy looking John of.64/65. Yet the stupid conspiracy is about Paul who.put on a bit of weight, lost thre baby face and grew a beard and a tache. DELUSIONAL theories.
Thing is, looking at certaim things that don't change with weight loss and gain such as skull shape jawline bone structure in the face and body etc John mostly looks like John at least through the 60s. Paul will at times look WILDLY different, and then 2 weeks later look very different again and keep changing.
For anyone not buying it, fine. Go watch Heather Mills interview which basically spills all the beans if youve been following it at all. She claims "Paul" betrayed "the world", and that the world would never be ready for the truth. She is afraid for her life, being quite a few people have died mysteriously in the Beatle camp.
Roxanne Moser To name a few: Stuart Sutcliffe, Brian Epstein, David Jacobs, Joseph Melvill See, Dr. Richard Asher, Mal Evans, Mary Pinchot Meyer, Tara Browne....
To the Paul is dead believers, I'm almost happy they found that replacement cause he was a bigger genius than "the real Paul". I also don't feel guilty about it, cause I know he's not really dead.
Here is my 2 cents, not that it matters..... There are people who believe Paul was replaced and people who don't. There is no use trying to convince anyone to chance their opinion. Most people are stubborn and prideful and won't even listen to the other side of an argument if they already have their mind made up. Either way, does it really matter what someone else thinks? You are entitled to your own opinion and if you feel that your answer is the correct one then that is all that matters. the great thing is, if one day absolute proof comes out and that proof happens to go along with your opinion then you can sit back and know you were right all along, and if you were wrong then maybe it will teach you to look a little deeper and listen to both sides. so everyone, stop focusing on trying to convince people they are wrong and just focus on getting all of the information, listening to both sides of the story and formulated a well educated opinion based on facts and common sense. Stop the bickering, after all......ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE!!
well when I first heard about the Paul is dead,I thought that's utterly rediculous. then I spent a few hundred hours researching it ,and I would bet my life it just IS NOT the same guy.similar experience on 9/11.the first time I heard that the muslim world was claiming that the Americans did it themselves,I saw red ,and wanted to nuke the entire Muslim world,then ten yrs layer I found the Internet and after a few hundred hours of studying every thing I could on 9/11 I am convinced beyond a doubt that it was done by the us government. Hitler once said the bigger the lie the more they will believe it . .
blondie52885, You are so right, but also consider that both Pauls could've appeared off and on, even before 67', and after 67', like they would take turns or something.
he had and still does have the biggest rock and roll band ,in the palm of his hand. once they played along,he had the ultimate control. arrogance is an understatement.
Paul was never arrogant. Not before 1966 and not after 1966. Some things in the mannerism changes you have to consider are these: LSD leads to personality changes, John faced them too as he seemed more sad, angry, fed up and bitter in the later 60's. Not only LSD lead to that, they just grew up in general, they stopped being kids and started being mature. They also grew more and more tired of being in The Beatles, the pressure from all the business was enormous. Also, the interview that is used here to represent "Faul" is an interview where he's being pressed by the reporter to take responsibility for using drugs as a role model for young people. He will obviously act differently. Notice that his voice always stayed identically the same, it never changed during this time. The looks did change as Paul lost weight and started using more drugs, which slimmed his face up a lot. The baby face left, the cheek chub disappeared. Imagine if it actually were a doppelganger though. Identical voice, very similar looks, genius composer that shares Paul's interests both musically and generally, owned all Paul's old things (including his sheep dog, his wealth, his old clothes, his home and his girlfriend), spent time with Paul's family and is able to play all the same instruments (left handed). What a double, right? The final proof is that John referred to him as "McCartney" in his private audio diary that he thought nobody would ever hear, and called him "Paul" in personal letters to him that he also didn't believe anyone would take part of. Why would he do this if the real name was William? Why would John privately refer to "Faul" with the name of his own dead best friend?
I'm keeping an open mind about it...but there are three "Faux Paul" interviews featured here - not just one. And I don't think his voice does sound identical in every clip. Also, the face appears longer, not just slimmer. The nose, too, looks not only thinner, but more hooked on later pics of Paul. That said, it's darned hard to argue with your other points...lol
Nah, they stopped touring and being the fabs, in '66: they were sick of it. They didn't want to be the plastic people that they were encouraged to be. Everyone's a bit of a twat - some more than others. Never meet your idols - you meet real Paul; and you don't like him - you want sweet Paul. Well ,he wasn't real - never was!
I have studied this a lot - you can see a phase of transition before Faul is convincingly in the skin of his new character - in the early months he looks off the peg -
If you're really dedicated to study then I encourage you the learn music theory, forensic science..etc and you'll realize you just waste your whole life looking into a stupid theory too much. Stop being a delusional and gullible.
@@th3gps223 anyone who thinks Paul died is a bone fide idiot. How can people believe such nonsense? I would refer you to all the idiots who swear that the earth is flat.
@JaneAsherKnows you're a quack Fred labour has admitted multiple times to making up william shears (billy shears) as a hoax for publicity www.parlia.com/a/billy-shears Aswell as photos of him side by side after 1966 and before being identical even up to freckles m.imgur.com/gallery/4XmqTd6 On top of all that...heres audio recordings from original recordings 1966 and before compared to recent live performances being almost identical www.audioforensicexpert.com/sir-paul-mccartney-is-not-dead/amp/ What more do you need?....john did not say "I buried paul" he says "cranberry sauce"...as for the album covers there are multiple takes of each album cover with different beatles even in the portions paul is in...its funny how a theory with so little evidence...built on speculation...and no proof that your double even exists...looney bin you belong sir
@JaneAsherKnows And the "walrus was paul" is complete gibberish...when john lennon heard teachers were having students analyze lyrics of paul and john he made alot of gibberish lyrics so people would try and make sense of complete gibberish as they did....john never said "I buried paul"....he said "cranberry sauce" and as for the difference in eye color paul has hazelnut eyes which appear more green or brown in different lighting and change with age...around middle age 25-40....and his ears just didnt change...yes he lost a decent bit of wait when he was partying alot in 67-68 and his cheeks got longer but that's it..
Lightner445555555555 Yes!! I think you've nailed it, Laddie. It's the drugs that make Paul seem as if he's "Faul". I'm serious. Paul pre-'67 and post talk differently. Close your eyes and listen - same exact voice but he's speaking in slightly different cadence (?) Your thoughts, Laddie ?
Jay, this height difference people keep talking about just isn't there! He's standing on a riser on the cover of "Sgt. Pepper's" and standing away from the Beatles on the back cover. You can see the shadow of distance on the left side of his blue jacket. Look at the videos by "Macca Lives" here on You Tube. There is a video comparing his height and he, John, and George were all about the same. His face appears longer because he dropped some weight during the break from touring in 1966.
MattHatter. It's not just the height, post 66 mccartney has broader shoulders and looks several years older and his voice isn't the same. I don't see how anyone could be objective and say that's definitely the same person.
67 Paul sounds overdub . It sounds like they are inside in a controlled environment instead of outside. But the appearance of his face is much more skinny. The 66 Paul has a calmer and easier demeanor where as 67 tilts his head alot and seems anxious
Paul has a brother, Mike McGear. And his father, Jim, lived until 1976. If Paul have had actually died, it is quite obvious that neither his father, nor his brother would allow such a substitution, being both his heirs, as well as of all his copyrights. Therefore, and considering such an inheritance of enormous value, the family would never agree with Paul being "replaced" by anyone.
Paul's brother refused to do a DNA test, from what I read. We'll never know the truth...kinda like did Lee Harvey Oswald really kill JFK all by himself? Was he even involved at all? Or was he a patsy?
If you close your eyes and listen to the voice, you hear two different people. I don't care what people say. There are two different Paul's. There is a gap in late 66 history. Especially September 11th to September 14. Brian Epstein had to cancel a promotional thing on the 13th, then George and patty split to India the 14th. If you look at film footage of the Africa trip with Paul and Mal, Paul looks slightly older. They say he grew the mustache because of a wreck. Well, the "Wreck" happened in 1965. Why hide it a year later, especially after you toured and appeared on TV?
So some secret organisation managed it to replace Paul McCartney with someone, who looks the same, talks almost the same way, can play guitar and piano as good, also writes great songs and is left handed, too. I think if someone really could have done all this in a short period of time without anyone knowing, they'd deserve that we don't mind.^^ After all, both Pauls would be the greatest musicians of all time.
L0REN0R2Z0RR0 I hear you, Mate. But can you not at least agree that he looks different ? I'm in no way convinced of "Faul". But something just looks different. It's something I can't quite explain. Like an essence.
Check out the real paul McCartney and tourists on you tube he is alive and drinking beer in his old house with his dog who else could get away with that stunt ?
That’s two different people. Different mannerisms, different skull shapes, different voices. ‘67 Paul talks with hands a lot more than ‘66 Paul and isn’t as witty and is blithely egocentric. ‘66 Paul is very charming and reserved.
nobody changes that much in 3 months.facial changes that drastic only happen when young,not mid-twenties. Lennon changed,but you could actually see the gradual toll the heroin took.Paul wasn't on H
@@JohnWildeFF LSD can really make you taller...change your hair from black to brown. Change your eyes from Brown to hazel etc. You are brilliant in your deduction. You should have been a detective.
@@thorpenator9148 Why do you need to talk shit? It's the personality that changed a bit, that's what I'm talking about. The hair colour didn't change, that's just not true. His face changed a bit because he had an accident in '66 and he had to go to surgery after that, as we (the people with brain) know. The voice, the singing style, the song writing, his family, his friends, the fact that he's a left handed talented musician (and there are not too much of them around) ... all that kind of stuff remained the same. Think!
@@JohnWildeFF Because your comment about LSD was stupid. It's obvious we are dealing with two different people. It amazes me, with all the evidence and still people won't...or can't believe it. There are many videos of people calling him William or Bill. Why doesn't William sue all the people who say he is a replacement? If someone said Tom Cruise was replace with a good double....he would sue the crap out of them. This never happens, because he has said many times...sometimes I go by real name...and also Paul McCartney.
His demeanor is different, his facial expressions are different, his mannerisms are different, his character is different, his head shape is different, is nose is different, is ears are different and on top of all that he grew 2 inches. Wow! all in the space of a year.
Gee, weren't The Beatles lucky? When the real Paul McCartney was killed in 1966, they right away managed to find a guy who not only looked like Paul, but also talked like Paul, sang like Paul, played bass like Paul (left-handed, no less), and wrote songs like Paul - all in one nice convenient package. And wouldn't you know it? This double agreed to leave his family and life, drop his own identity, and spend the rest of his days in a charade as a rock star. And naturally, the real Paul McCartney's family gladly went along with the whole plan, and freely handed over all of the real Paul's estate to this stranger impersonating their dead relative, just to keep the plot going. But not content with that, The Beatles decided to clue the whole world in on the massive conspiracy by leaving little hints in their records, just for the heck of it. Amazing, huh? Hey Fab Listeners, listen up! It's been 45 years since the 'Paul is dead' publicity stunt was launched. ENOUGH OF THIS NONSENSE, ALREADY!!! It is long overdue that you came to your senses. PAUL MCCARTNEY IS ALIVE AND WELL!!!!
I also love how they supposedly kept it secret because they thought it would make beatlemaniacs cry because the beatles were so popular. Then how come after the popularity of the beatles died down, they didn't give poor Billy a break and have him fake his own death? And you'd think they'd let the poor guy not make any music anymore, but no! Paul was all over the place in the 80s and 90s! He's still touring today! Really makes you feel bad for Billy, doesn't it? Also, if this was so secret and they didn't want anyone to know about it, why did they put clues on the albums in the first place? And why does Paul being backwards on Sgt Pepper mean he's dead, but George being backwards on A Hard Day's Night doesn't?
atoonproductions Great points! I never even thought of that. "Also, if this was so secret and they didn't want anyone to know about it, why did they put clues on the albums in the first place?" - EXACTLY! It's amazing that adults these days actually think something like this is true.
LSD is one hell of a drug. he may have looked different in '67 from '66, but in '68 he was paul again. he has the same voice, and after '67, same face. interviews in the 80's and 90's and 00's show him talking about *past times* with george and such. this is paul. this paul is dead theory is the stupidest shit i have ever heard in my life.
There's much more to the whole thing than just the song lyrics. You can make excuses for two or three issues but not for as many as there are. Why did his fingerprints not match the ones he'd given in Japan when touring there the first time with The Beatles? There's no logical reason for that. Just like there's no logical reason how Paul just suddenly in a matter of months became an expert piano player who could compose music on the piano, was quite proficient with horns, and on drums. He never did that before, he always used his guitar. Paul could bang out a few old tunes his dad taught him, but Billy Shepherd was a musical prodigy who could play piano, bass and lead guitar, horns, and drums. And he was left handed. He'd been studying piano since he was a child. That's the length of time needed to play and compose as well as Paul suddenly did on Sgt. Pepper. When that album was first released there were a lot of pro musicians and music critics saying Hey wait a minute here....how did Paul ever get so advanced on piano and able to compose music on it?? Most people simply wrote it off as another incredible feat of the Beatles. The photos alone are so obvious you'd have to really be in denial not to admit it. And a lot of people are understandably. Paul had detached ears, Billy has attached ears. Paul's nose is wider and more round on the end, Billy's is noticeably thinner and more pointy. Paul had brown eyes, Billy has hazel. Billy is two inches taller. His face is longer and his skull narrower. He has ugly feet, Paul had nice looking feet. The French tried to prove it's really Paul and accidently proved it's not by his dental work. The list goes on and on. They didn't just suddenly find a double for Paul. He'd been working with the band for years as a double for Paul to lure the fans away while the Beatles entered a building, writing articles for their fan magazines, and much more. They all knew him very well. I grew up with the Beatles. Paul was my favorite Beatle. After '66 I didn't care for him anymore, he wasn't the same. I didn't know why at the time, but I do now. Paul is the only Beatle who's style of playing changed dramatically after '66. Watch his prior performances then watch them after '66. I wish it was the same person. But it's not. We need to give the real Paul the mourning he never had and is due and quit trying to pretend he never left us.
@@jlbaker2000 OK, fine, it nails it totally, IF: 1) you believe the story, 2) you have convincing proof, and 3) you don't believe in bureaucratic bungling. I would be inclined to question all three assumptions. 3Ddude's arguments and assertions (above) are as full of holes as this, and most PID claims, but I really can't be bothered going through them all for the umpteenth time. As I see it, believers are gonna believe, no matter how much you try and explain the less glamorous and exciting/more complex and boring alternatives to them. I suppose in the end people believe what they deep down want to believe, or have been persuaded to believe, and then reconstruct reality in their minds to fit the belief/myth, ignoring all the stuff that doesn't tally. Once you're a way down this delusional path, it's like a vortex, from which there's no escape!! Just my opinion, no offence intended to the 'true believers'..
@@papercup2517 I totally admit that it appears ridiculous. In so many ways it just doesn't compute. Sometimes I gravitate to the other side who adamantly claims that it's Paul, not Faul. But I can't get over the physical differences. In one year his appearance changed dramatically. But how could all the plastic surgery procedures necessary be completed in only one year?
@@jlbaker2000 IIUC, it was a lot less than a year that this supposed transition took place. As far as I'm aware, he was only missing from his usual London haunts for a few weeks or months at most, which is what started the initial rumour in London that inspired the student magazine and radio hoax in America. Certainly not long enough, as you point out, for such a complex series of surgeries to take place and heal. Even more puzzlingly, he seems to have had a personality transplant at the same time, since he's still, in his 70s, essentially the same sociable, lively, polite, charming, usually kind-hearted and patient, at least in public, talkative/highly communicative creative artist. (ie typical Gemini, if you're into astrology.) Not something you can really fake for decades, IMO - maybe for a week or a few months, but no-one can take on acting someone else's personality, 24 hrs a day for life. AND be a seemingly nice, and pretty chilled guy at ease with himself and the world. If you study photos of Paul when he was in his teens, you'll see his face/head didn't actually structurally change in 66-67 from how it's always been. PIDers often seem to zero in on pictures /footage of him during those US tours, for their 'before and after' comparisons, when he had a particularly exaggerated, almost bouffant 'pudding-basin' haircut - which made his skull look even more round (as some say, like a bowling ball) than it really is, and in relation to that, his chin did look quite small and delicate. But look at older pics (I'll post a link for you) and you can see he's always had quite a long face and quite a strong bony chin - although seen from some angles, and as he's got older, it often looks weaker, disappearing into the neck. (Sorry Paul, if you're reading this!) In the 'after' photos usually favoured by PIDers, he'd definitely started looking a bit haggard facially, at the same time as he got the tatty mullet, and was getting a little more short-tempered and uncomfortable with endless, invasive, usually pretty inane press questions. This was around the time they were all getting to be thoroughly 'over' touring and the years of Beatlemania madness. I think they'd all just had enough of the hysteria and frankly scariness at times of it all. Maybe a jaded, exhausted and unkempt/ haggard presentation is more of a shock coming from Paul because his basic personality is normally so sweet and charming, and he used to look so dapper in the early famous-Beatle years (63-65) before he met Linda and they headed off together for the scruffier country life, surrounded by their growing brood of kids and animals, no doubt knee-deep in manure and mud half the time, far from all the crazy Beatle fandom and hate-dom. As I see it, from their own comments, some people, esp in America, just can't let go of their original, 20-something, US Tour period, smooth/soft-faced, cuddly, obliging, cherubic choirboy, supremely non-threatening impression of Paul, and want to keep him trapped in that one-dimensional public image, frozen in time, forever. But he's only human, and humans do grow and change in themselves and in their look and demeanour over time. All 4 Beatles, esp J,P and G, changed not only their looks but their creative and general life focus around this time, as constant touring and the harassment that accompanied it had become so dispiriting. So I see nothing unusual or questionable in Paul looking and sounding a bit rough around the edges at this particular period of stress - and there's no doubt that being a Beatle around 66, before they stopped touring, was stressful eg on their visits to Philippines and Japan when they were getting roughed up by government thugs for not arse licking the ghastly Imelda Marcos and for offending cultural warriors in Japan over the use of a hall they'd been booked into, etc - not to mention the religious nuts in America with their record-burnings over John's off-hand comments about Jesus. All too much for anyone, especially for creative artists like the Beatles. As far as I know, Paul is still alive, still the same guy, give or take a bit of life experience, and doing fine. Just my opinion and view of the whole thing, no offence intended to the PIA-sceptics.
The real Paul (where did he go?) had a head shaped like an inverted triangle, with soft rounded edges. His replacement (now called "Sir" Faul McCartney) has a head shaped like a loaf of rectangular pan bread. Once you notice this, it's very easy at a quick glance to pick out the real Paul and the faux Paul (aka Faul, aka Billy Spears, aka "Sir" Faul McCartney).
it's always a pleasure listening to the tone and rhythm of early Paul's speaking and singing voice. After '67 he's still a great musician, but whenever he sings or talks from then on, i can't hear the magic anymore. So don't blame me. Blame my ears for being the conspiracy theorists.
@@jorgerivera1861 Estoy de acuerdo. Y ni siquiera soy músico profesional. No tengo ningún entrenamiento formal, pero hay MUCHOS oídos entrenados en este mundo que deberían haber dicho algo. ¿De qué tienen miedo?
i'm fed up of people saying "LSD changed him", then how can you explain LSD changing his height and facial structure? drugs changing a personality is very plausible but you then have to take into account all the other physical differences in these men, including bass playing, singing and voice. These are two different men
What? Like a grown man's eye socket moving up 1/2". Or thinner face? Or more oblong ears which lay back, compared to fuller rounder ears? Or grow 4" in a year? To moving back and forth instead of bouncy bouncy up and down? Or the position of the arms and hands while playing bass? You're one of those conspiracy fruity nut jobs, right? Oh, wait. Then that makes me..... Shit. Never mind.
James Paul McCartney died in car crash on September 11 1966. Brian Epstein with the consent of the authorities at the time and the three Beatles, he decides to replace Paul with a right-handed session musician named William Shepherd. Everyone involved, including their families, vowed to keep everything a secret. However, The Beatles produced over a hundred clues about Paul's death in their albums and images. William underwent numerous cosmetic surgeries to resemble Paul. William is two inches taller than Paul, William has green eyes, William has a weaker and thinner voice than Paul, William has totally different manners. Musically, Paul was a genius, William is a weak musician.
Paul McCartney did not attend his father's funeral, Faul did not go either. Original Paul had brown eyes, Faul has green eyes. There is a difference in the way each holds their guitars. Faul was in a Japanese jail for a week because his fingerprints did not match Paul's fingerprints. England had to get involved to get him out. I personally can see the difference in the photos of them.
they all changed from end of 66, john seemed like a different person - the glasses and almost new face. Either paul died and they all had to chnge tremendously with the whole psychedelic thing, I think everyone followed them after that
his singing voice changes. it sounds completly different after '67. if you look at the originak takes of hey jude. william campbell/ phil akrtill/ whoever the fuck faul is cant hit the notes well. real james paul mccartney had a beautiful voice. SHES A WOMAN. Paul is DEAD. /.
His singing voice did change, but it sounds nearly identical on Sgt Pepper and returns to being nearly like young Paul after mid 70s. The answer? Cigarettes. They lower your voice and affect breathing. You can tell when he quit smoking. A similar thing happened with Bob Dylan. And anyway, your voice gets lower as you age, especially if you use it a lot
+bocobob Yes. All of the Beatles were replaced, if not, replaced, they were multiples all along. Some say there were 12 Beatles. That means, 3 times 4.. each Beatle had 3 doubles each acting as a character. 3 Johns, 3 Pauls, 3 Georges, & 3 Ringos.
@@HannahFaith69 you are right and the PID rumor was MI6 disinformation to hide the fact that all 4 Beatles were assassinated and replaced with doubles. On August 29, 1966, the real Beatles disappeared into a Brinks armored truck at Candlestick Park and were never seen alive again.
Although the powers that be managed to.make him look somewhat like a beatle, he neither looks like Paul, or sings like Paul nor plays the same as J.P.M. Billy (faul) is beyond arrogant. Besides, nobody can change the color of their eyes. Besides that, Nobody can grow almost 4 inches in their twenties. And besides that, J.P.M. would never have written such bubble gum , pablum fruity stuff like Your Mother Should Know, Honey Pie, Wild Honey Pie, Obla Di Obla Da, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Mrs. Vanderbilt , Jet, Etc. Etc. Out of 20 albums or more, only Band on the run was partially great. And let's not forget the delightful Loop, first Indian on the moon from Red Rose Speedway. Also, He was jailed in Japan because his fingerprints didn't match from his previous visit. I resent the deception
@@cw2497 PIDs just can't deal with the fact that human beings (specially in The Beatles position) CHANGE, grow, evolve. In appeareance, demeanor, opinions, tastes, interests, etc. etc.)
@@cw2497 your comment is not logical. so why is Billy's voice and musical ability at his very peak in 1969 better than Paul's earlier voice. Oh that's because it is Paul and his voice actually matured and got stronger as the 60s went on (then got worse as he aged from 1969 on just like pretty much every singer in the world). Or have it your way. It is Billy in 1969. Making him the better singer and musician. You can't have it both ways.
@@cw2497 If he is far less good looking and talented, why does everyone not immersed in this conspiracy theory see no difference at all? My three year old can identify Paul from photo to photo, across the Beatles years.
They seem the same person, same voice and same way of speaking ( little nervous and with some little shivers movements) Both use to touch their face while speaking. The second Paul, of course a little older, but thats all.
i totally agree. the only thing that changed about him was his body weight (most likely due to drug use) and a slight personality change (also most likely due to drug use). other than that he sounds exactly the same, is left handed, and as great or greater of a musician than before. no mystery here...
The facial bones are the last bones in the human body to fuse and is the last stage of adolescence. This occurs in males at around 24/25 years of age, in females a couple of years earlier. It can happen earlier in some people, and the changes imperceptible in some individuals but not others. What happened to Paul's face is completely normal. He didn't die. About the fingerprints: use of steroidal cream can temporarily erase or change fingerprints. Pretty sure Paul's fingerprints are his own, not 'Faul's'.
Jeez, people will believe anything. His look and the Beatles' look just changed dramatically from 1966-1967. It's clearly the same person, he just matured a little more, got thinner in the face and took quite a few drugs
@@aprilgarcia2161 Hi, April remember me? I made a vid please check out ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8hJ709TEjOs.html Faul (Bill?) meets Paul and The Beatles in 1964 UPI photo.
This silly rumor has been kept alive . . . . It has become laughable . This video was wonderful . . . Watching Paul grow from young lad into a more confident man .
Watch you tube the real Paul McCartney and tourists a d it will all become clear . He never died he simply quit . .maybe he had a breakdown or was injured badly in the supposed car wreck.but he is alive and well drinking beer in his old house with his dog . If anybody else did those two things in Paul's house they might be executed in liverpool
@@BeatlemaccaAR who else could get away drinking and having a dog in the house ? Look at the puppy dog eyes and eye lashes. Watch i want to hold your hand at ed sullivan theater video . The current paul never does this song ! Why? Because he cant! Compare the ears in both videos and you will see a match! Look at the beetles help album cover and you will see,that paul is only an inch or so taller than ringo. The current paul is much taller and was the tallest in the group after 1966.
@@BeatlemaccaAR the current paul has destroyed his own credibility by claiming he went along with the paul is dead hoax in 69. Whoever he his i am still a fan and like wings uncle albert/ admiral halsey very much plus others, however i am saddened he has destroyed his credibility even if he was pressured by brian epstiein or the group to go along with the paul is dead thing. So one way or the other he lied or is still lying. This is very sad too see such a talented person followed by this deception that he created or went along with. Destroyed credibility never goes away in the publics eye. The
I don't care if it's Faul because he's amazing as well. He sings amazing. He acts amazing. Don't get me wrong, I love Paul, just appreciate Paul and Faul both. They're both Beatles, aren't they??! Does it matter???
Yeah is “Billy” is real the he was the genius. Like he knows how to play both hands with right and left on Bass, Drum and guitar. He also makes Maybe I’m Amazed, Long and Winding Road, Let it be, Hey Jude and so many more. Then “Billy” made Sgt Pepper because Paul IS the Person who had the idea or Sgt Pepper. The Paul is Dead theory is garbage y’know.
If the impostar had facial surgery how the hell do you explain his son (James McCartney) looking exactly like him?? This theory is just stupid in all ways
@@Hester-l6k His mouth and nose does look exactly like Pauls. And Pauls daughter, Mary McCartney, looks even more like him. Adding everything, there is no doubt that Paul has not changed his face.
@@daemondif7051 Height...ears..lips...eyes and skull shape are different. Hope you are never on a jury...you may convict the wrong man to life in prison...haha
If the faul rumours are true (which i dont think they are cause it IS the same guy) you are saying he doesnt look like paul, but obviously he does if he (won a lookalike, soundalike, playalike contest) give yourself a break the lot of you
He s a bloody good actor our William I’ll give him that much. He deserves a medal acting Paul for 50 years. He should come out and spend his last few years as William now and get the credit he deserves !
Hahahah so true :') its the same Paul, people are idiots trying to make conspiracies. Illuminati, give me a break. Beatles had no involvement with them.
+Aidan McLaren Do you really think that that they're paying people to post in youtube comment threads 50 years later? You conspiracy freaks really have no perspective. At least Kennedy and the moon landing affected world events. This theory is just straight stupid.
Andrey Myakishev 50 years later....? What...? OK, we'll just ignore the stupidity in that sentence for a moment. Yes, they are paying people to spread disinfo and keep the bigotry towards conspiracy theorists alive. Shills are invaluable tools to keep the illusion going on.
Aidan McLaren 2016-1966 = 50 Where's the confusion? Sure, they've just been paying people to say it's the same guy for 50 years, that sounds a like a great investment. It can't be that people actually think you're an idiot. They must be profiting from this somehow.
Aidan McLaren I beg your pardon? I am a lifelong Beatles fan. I am going to see Paul perform again in a few weeks. I love that man. Sadly, he will die someday and when he does, my heart will break. Until then, however, I will celebrate the *fact* that he is alive and well and still putting on these incredible shows. You can enjoy your little bubble of delusion if you want. I'm living in reality, which sometimes is shit, and sometimes is great. Seeing Paul perform is great. Knowing he's still with us, is also great.
That's because one is James Paul Mcartney and the other is Billy shears pretending to be Paul Mcartney do yiur home work and notice there two different people
Ok, I'm confused. This Faul dude doesn't look, sound or act anything like Paul McCartney, yet I just watched an interview of Paul McCartney when he was in Wings and he looked, sounded and acted like the "original" Paul McCartney. I'm so confused. Conspiracy theories are so much fun. I'm addicted to this one. Just hours of entertainment.
Well, that's lovely for you, but just try to remember this is a real person, and that this persistent PID theory, which quite a lot of people take far more seriously than you, has probably been incredibly frustrating and at times distressing for him, his family, and long time friends over the years. Not to mention, there's always the possibility of delusional fans doing something rash... People are not just there for our 'entertainment', even famous ones. And famous people, like most of us, do go through changes in their lives in which their appearance and demeanour can change quite radically, often in response to periods of stress and other key events, although something of their essential personality generally remains for life. Check out photos of teenage Paul, and you'll see how his features have always been basically the same, but are constantly varying somewhat in different photos/footage, with different lighting/ film quality/ camera angles/ moods etc, and at different times in his life. This is not some extraordinary thing that can only be explained by some sort of imposter/s theory - it's just NORMAL!!
@Donna G. He has an occasional public humorous dig at PID conspiracy believers, usually in response to an interviewer's line of questioning. He has a good sense of humour and isn't a brooder, or vengeful, I think, by nature. But it's pretty obvious anyone who's had 2 out of 3 former bandmates attacked, one fatally, by deranged fans with strange Beatle-related theories, is going to be wary and need to be protective at times, of himself and his family. I'm not sure what this and someone's current 'worth' in monetary terms would have to do with the various possibly stressful/ certainly life changing events I referred to that were going on in and around 1966 for Paul and the other Beatles, particularly the sudden loss of their friend, manager and business mentor, Brian Epstein, and Paul's break-up with Jane. Rich people can feel stress too. Everybody hurts.
Honestly I can't tell the difference, but I still believe something happened to the original Paul sometime in 66 because subsequently the Beatles never played live again, the look and concept of the band changes, Brian Epstein's overdose death, John & Paul couldn't get along, Paul never speaks to Jane again, John becomes paranoid and is later assassinated and the strange case of Yoko's manipulation and control of John. Why did John Lennon allow a strange foreign woman take the reigns of his life? Doesn't add up.
The change became evident after spending time in India with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. They came away from their time there renewed as a band but later found out the Maharishi was a fraud. Still, the experience had a good impact on them because it helped them to realize through meditation, they really didn't need the drugs. But, they never gave up the Marijuana.
James Paul McCartney died in car crash on September 11 1966. Brian Epstein with the consent of the authorities at the time and the three Beatles, he decides to replace Paul with a right-handed session musician named William Shepherd. Everyone involved, including their families, vowed to keep everything a secret. However, The Beatles produced over a hundred clues about Paul's death in their albums and images. William underwent numerous cosmetic surgeries to resemble Paul. William is two inches taller than Paul, William has green eyes, William has a weaker and thinner voice than Paul, William has totally different manners. Musically, Paul was a genius, William is a weak musician.
Okay, we are expressing our beliefs on here about whether Paul McCartney died in 1966 and then was replaced with an impostor. Whatever you feel is the truth, is your right and certainly your business. However, when people are uncivil in this discourse and resort to insulting people you don't even know, and awful name calling, the discussion stops being interesting. And why is it noticeable that the individuals who believe in the theory, have, for the most part, expressed their views and defenses politely, or at least reasonably, while the other side has been beyond rude. Hostility and anger in a debate say a lot about a person. The overt defensiveness shows that the disbelievers on this forum could be a step away from being believers. IMO there are a lot of them on this thread.
I suggest you look at more photos, not just the ones you get shown on PID-promoting websites/YT channels. And bear in mind the comments I made re analogue photo quality/ techniques, in my long response to @Danny Collins, above.
The difference is Faul impersonated Paul well.. after plastic surgery he looks the same.. he’s a talented musician and has a good musical ‘ear’ which enables him to impersonate Paul’s accent, style of stop-start speech, saying ‘you know’, mannerisms like putting his hand on his face or scratching his ear/face, making the 0 shape with his mouth etc. (Even though when Faul makes the 0 shape it always looks forced and, I’m sorry to say, stupid). But those things are natural expressions and mannerisms of the real Paul: they are just extensions of his whole personality.. Whereas after 66 it seems that’s all that Paul has become.. a paradoy of himself.. Faul has studied his mannerisms and expertly wields them to portray ‘Paul’.. but the soul and essence of Paul and Faul are worlds apart.. but Faul does a great impression.. and I think because of that, if you don’t want to believe, you don’t have to. I’m not saying Billy isn’t a fab musician.. wrote some good songs.. is quite funny and personable at times.. is a cheeky chappy and many peoples last hope for their Beatles dream.. I mean, man, he’s carried this thing a long time.. but he’s not JPM.. All the best folks
That is why they had to change him they did not want to quit but he did or was injured. He is alive and well . Watch the real paul McCartney and tourists on youtube . He is drinking beer with his dog in his old house now who else could get away with that?
you wanna know what changed? he got a different haircut and did a hell of a lot cocaine lmao. he lost weight during the sgt pepper recordings because of that and as time went on he was just maturing... i can't believe this bullshit is still giving people serious thoughts.
The guy in the back ground peeping with that grin on his face is a funny little Irish man called Alan Harrington he is totally nutz about The Beatles he disaappears into his shrine in the attick where you will find his 1960s collection. He also does Discos around Kilburn area anyone know him???
