Paul McCartney died in 1966, and was replaced

As a general response to the incredulousness:

While the disbelief is more than likely warranted, I think if we look, there are many things we believe and many hypotheses we entertain that can be regarded the same way as McCartney being replaced etc. I do know that I do not know what is true regarding all the various theories above. It is also not really of major concern what the real answers are. The easy thing is to say "absolute rubbish", but why be closed minded and come to a definite conclusion about something that makes no difference and about which we have so little real information? Doing so might reinforce the behavior of making snap judgements that may or may not be accurate.

"Any and all things are possible" So I think it is important to maintain an open mind. Why close off possibilities?

Many people must look at the C's multi-density portrayal of reality with a "higher" level 4D STS "Boss" that manipulates and controls humanity (as well as "time") for it's own ends as impossible rubbish. Not to mention the very existence of the C's communicating through a ouija board from some incomprehensible strata of reality. Same goes for the immaculate conception and many, many religious dogmas.

I can easily understand and imagine how a great many people could lump the C's hypothesis and the McCartney hypothesis and the Christian hypothesis all in the same bin labelled "Outlandish ideas that couldn't possibly be true." So, just because something sounds outlandish doesn't necessarily mean anything. All it really means is that it sounds far-fetched to the person to whom it sounds far-fetched to. Vaccinations to create GMO humans; EM frequency fences; Supermen incubating beneath the surface of the earth; Nephilim enforcers, Nazi bases in Antarctica and the possibility to graduate to a different density of existence and on and on. I prefer to try to keep an open mind about all of it, especially since there is so little I REALLY KNOW of any of it.
 
BHelmet said:
The easy thing is to say "absolute rubbish", but why be closed minded and come to a definite conclusion about something that makes no difference and about which we have so little real information?

What you are framing as close-mindedness is often really just an assertion of priorities. How many puzzles do you really solve by concluding that Hawking or Paul is a doppleganger? I doubt many here would have a problem considering those possibilities if they actually came up as something that needed to be considered as a possibility. We can make plenty of progress on many fronts based on much less vague information. We can know about the subversion of science and the media based on much more concrete information than the mere speculation that Hawking and Paul have been replaced.
 
BHelmet said:
As a general response to the incredulousness:

While the disbelief is more than likely warranted, I think if we look, there are many things we believe and many hypotheses we entertain that can be regarded the same way as McCartney being replaced etc. I do know that I do not know what is true regarding all the various theories above. It is also not really of major concern what the real answers are. The easy thing is to say "absolute rubbish", but why be closed minded and come to a definite conclusion about something that makes no difference and about which we have so little real information? Doing so might reinforce the behavior of making snap judgements that may or may not be accurate.

"Any and all things are possible" So I think it is important to maintain an open mind. Why close off possibilities?

Many people must look at the C's multi-density portrayal of reality with a "higher" level 4D STS "Boss" that manipulates and controls humanity (as well as "time") for it's own ends as impossible rubbish. Not to mention the very existence of the C's communicating through a ouija board from some incomprehensible strata of reality. Same goes for the immaculate conception and many, many religious dogmas.

I can easily understand and imagine how a great many people could lump the C's hypothesis and the McCartney hypothesis and the Christian hypothesis all in the same bin labelled "Outlandish ideas that couldn't possibly be true." So, just because something sounds outlandish doesn't necessarily mean anything. All it really means is that it sounds far-fetched to the person to whom it sounds far-fetched to. Vaccinations to create GMO humans; EM frequency fences; Supermen incubating beneath the surface of the earth; Nephilim enforcers, Nazi bases in Antarctica and the possibility to graduate to a different density of existence and on and on. I prefer to try to keep an open mind about all of it, especially since there is so little I REALLY KNOW of any of it.

The difference between the two is that there is circumstantial evidence for the cosmology of the Cs, it 'works' so to speak, whereas the ideas about dopplegangers are based on very subjective impressions of single people based on no circumstantial evidence. That's a big difference. We are not talking about two things that "sound outlandish", we are talking about something for which there is lots of circumstantial evidence, and something for which there is none. So you're making a false equivalency here.

As for "why not stay open to the idea", I think that's a cop out, why stay open to a claim for which there is zero evidence? Why bother, why waste brain energy or space on such a thing. It amounts to believing lies, which has negative implications for brain functioning and 'opens the door' to believing other more nefarious lies. A major aspect of what we do here is to learn to separate, as best we can, truth from lies, fact from fiction, to assign probabilities. Once we have assigned low or no probability to something, why hold on to it?
 
I agree and being open minded just for the sake of it is equal to being close minded by default. If you have a claim that isn't supported by any real data, it's not useful to "stay open" for it. Quite the opposite, i think. After all different ideas can and do affect how we think and see the world. It's true that "absolute rubbish" is subjective claim, and for example ideas that were "absolute rubbish" for man just few centuries ago, are reality today. But like Joe said, it's evidence that matters, so we should have a case by case approach in deciding what ideas to keep ourselves open. (The phrase "being open minded" is usually attributed positively in our society, which can lead to uncritical attitudes and beliefs.)

Perhaps it's useful to look it like being a cave man in an unknown forest, who is searching for edible foods. There's plenty of things that are edible, but many are detrimental if eaten. Having an "open mind" in that environment wouldn't be of any use and could cost one's life. So it's better to study the subject carefully and long enough in order to decide if it's safe to eat or not.
 
BHelmet said:
"Any and all things are possible" So I think it is important to maintain an open mind. Why close off possibilities?

I've noticed on Facebook that exact response from many flat Earthers who will never admit they are FE'ers. Even after presenting evidence that it can't possibly be flat they often say something like “Well I think it's important to maintain an open mind. Why close off possibilities?”

I'm not accusing you of anything Bhelmet. And as Joe says it's important that we learn to separate fact from fiction, truth from lies.
 
One more thought: open mindedness is almost always associated positively in our culture, and that can lead to lots of unhealthy attitudes and beliefs. Because who wants to be close minded, right? We've all probably heard about someone that "he's such an open minded", when in reality the person couldn't think critically and lacked responsibility. (Similarly as "strong person" can just mean character disturbance). this is probably more common nowadays because of the current liberal atmosphere.
 
Seppo Ilmarinen said:
One more thought: open mindedness is almost always associated positively in our culture, and that can lead to lots of unhealthy attitudes and beliefs. Because who wants to be close minded, right? We've all probably heard about someone that "he's such an open minded", when in reality the person couldn't think critically and lacked responsibility. (Similarly as "strong person" can just mean character disturbance). this is probably more common nowadays because of the current liberal atmosphere.

You don't want your mind to be so open your brains fall out!
 
BHelmet said:
Some may know for sure. I don't. However, RE Hawking:

The average survival time for ALS is four years. Hawking was first diagnosed in 1963, and doctors gave him maybe two years to live. It is now 54 years later. He has said some bizarre sounding things the past few years which fit an anti-god/anti-humanity agenda and don't really sound all that scientific to me. It would not surprise me if, in fact, he had been replaced somehow.

As for McCartney, I don't know. Were the Beatles part of a Psyop? They certainly went from bright optimistic pop cutsie heart-throbs to moody, psycho-delic druggie 'bad boys' in a hurry: The classic Hannah Montana to Miley Cyrus downfall/disillusionment of the hero of a generation pattern.

But yeah - quirky but probably not worth the effort and no way to know for sure IMO.

...And don't forget to throw in "Lennon is actually still alive" too.

BHelmet, I was looking for another thread to link to, in the hopes that you might read more about it... And then I remembered that you had been involved in that discussion back then:

Stephen Hawking Replaced with Double?

:scared: Do we need to go over this again? I think that those of you who are going on about these dopplegangers should go back and read that thread again. Indeed, TOO MUCH "open mindedness" can be dangerous...
 
Chu said:
BHelmet said:
Some may know for sure. I don't. However, RE Hawking:

The average survival time for ALS is four years. Hawking was first diagnosed in 1963, and doctors gave him maybe two years to live. It is now 54 years later. He has said some bizarre sounding things the past few years which fit an anti-god/anti-humanity agenda and don't really sound all that scientific to me. It would not surprise me if, in fact, he had been replaced somehow.

As for McCartney, I don't know. Were the Beatles part of a Psyop? They certainly went from bright optimistic pop cutsie heart-throbs to moody, psycho-delic druggie 'bad boys' in a hurry: The classic Hannah Montana to Miley Cyrus downfall/disillusionment of the hero of a generation pattern.

But yeah - quirky but probably not worth the effort and no way to know for sure IMO.

...And don't forget to throw in "Lennon is actually still alive" too.

BHelmet, I was looking for another thread to link to, in the hopes that you might read more about it... And then I remembered that you had been involved in that discussion back then:

Stephen Hawking Replaced with Double?

:scared: Do we need to go over this again? I think that those of you who are going on about these dopplegangers should go back and read that thread again. Indeed, TOO MUCH "open mindedness" can be dangerous...

It is not only can be dangerous, also is a tactic of STS to make us waste time and energy in no sense stories.Frankly i prefer to close my mind in these cases ;)
 
Dear all have been busy will provide what I have seen on you tube with some book references.
will then be interesting for all to see read and consider with an open mind.
 
Dear all have been busy will provide what I have seen on you tube with some book references.
will then be interesting for all to see read and consider with an open mind.
Please review the following youtube channel presentations:
In chronological order or for summary start youtube presentation in bold, followed by remaining.
All books are referenced in
Sage of Quay Radio - Neil Sanders - The Real Charles Manson Story (Aug 2017)
Cara St. Louis with Mark Devlin and Mike Williams - The Great Beatle Conspiracy (Aug 2017)
Sage of Quay Radio - Friends of Sage - A Paul Is Dead Discussion (Oct 2017)
Patricia Steere with Mike Williams - Paul Is Dead: The Memoirs of Billy Shears (Apr 2018)
Sage of Quay Radio - Nick Chylak - The Teenage Paul Is Dead Researcher (June 2018)
Sage of Quay - Mike Williams on Metaphysical Connection - Yes, Paul Is Still Dead (July 2018)
Mike Williams with Mark Devlin - The McCartney Conspiracy 9/9/9 Updates (Sept 2018)
The Making of the Beatles First US Visit - Documentary
Sage of Quay™ - Mike Williams - The Beatles, Paul McCartney and The Grand Illusion (Dec 2018)
Sage of Quay™ - Mike Williams - The Beatles, Paul McCartney and The Grand Illusion (Dec 2018)
Sage of Quay™ - Gary Lachman on Aleister Crowley (Full Lecture)
Sage of Quay™ - Nick Chylak - Billy Shears, Crowley and the Hardy Warrior (Mar 2019)
Sageof Quay™ - Mike Williams - The Movie Yesterday is a Paul Is Dead Film (July 2019)
Sage of Quay™ - Mike Williams - The McCartney, Stanshall, Ackrill Analysis (Aug 2019)
* Sage of Quay Hub Website: http://www.sageofquay.com/

The Memoirs of Billy Shears: The Nine After 9-09 Edition Paperback – 9 Sept. 2018
by Thomas E. Uharriet (Author), Billy Shears (Author), Gregory Paul Martin (Foreword)
Take your time watch as many presentations before making rash judgement calls, read the book also.
The social engineering aspect is very important.
 
Welcome seeker of light, seeing this is your sixth post on the forum, we would appreciate it if you would post a brief intro about yourself in the Newbies section, telling us how you found this forum, how long you've been reading it and/or the SOTT page, whether or not you've read any of Laura's books yet, etc.

And it would be great if you could share a link to the video and source as well. Generally I think on such a topic that it is very unlikely that McCartney died in 1966 and eventually is intended to muddy the waters of real conspiracy theories.
Dear Gawan, I replied with youtube videos and book reference.
 
I think there may already be a really old discussion on this topic somewhere on the forum. I believe the consensus of opinion was that it was a load of nonsense.
Dear Laura, Yes this was my first thoughts but I was intrigued and followed my intuition and now i am not so sure, know you are very busy with all your work but if you ever get some spare time have a look at video postings and book reference. From the information it was a lot bigger than just replacing Paul McCartney.
Thank you and the team, for all your work.
By the way i was surprised at the C's stating QAnon is psyops, I guess disappointed because I want to believe all will turn out good in USA, (I think part of you likes Trump at a certain level):-)
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom