seriously op ...you believe this ...



that means the fake ...paul-mccartney-died-in-1966...
an in 1969, Paul McCartney married Linda Eastman, wow ... shakes head ...




why would Ringo lie & let the fake Paul marry and go on to have children also ...if he new the truth would come out at some point ... that would be devastating to the McCartney family ... unless McCartney comes out and say it is true... I don't believe it ...that could reun his reputation + would sue Ringo for slander ...

and if they can prove to by DNA and Paul ops out of the test ... then I may believe the enquirer...


http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/paul-mccartney-refutes-ringo-starrs-allegations-that-he-died-in-1966-3/

Paul didn't die. He left to form a new band. The Rutles.
http://www.rutles.org/

ok that's funny but will be interesting if he does the DNA sample ...

You sure have a lot of questions about this article for someone who wonders if I believe this story. If you were convinced this wasn't true, you wouldn't be wondering if Paul will fork over his DNA sample.

This is one of the most ridiculous stories ever. First of all, I don't believe Ringo ever said any such thing. Secondly, I would think that the author of the story could have gotten something as simple as the math right. It's a "45 year old" rumor dating back to 1966? This "article" is from this year. Considering the "crash" occurred in November, that's 48 years and some change. That little discrepancy erases any credibility the author may have had. Now add in that someone from the "real" Paul's family probably would have said something over the span of 48 years and that the "fake" Paul would very likely have either inadvertently outed himself or been outed by someone else in that time. This story has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese.

Did you read the second article?