One of the articles that has received a fair bit of traffic on my site is the one about the evidence which suggests Paul McCartney “changed” (physically) in 1966 – and therefore that he was replaced by a close double. Some people have/had a very emotive reaction to this evidence, for several reasons. For those that wish to study the evidence further, Tina Foster, an attorney by profession has published a book called “Plastic Macca: The Secret Death and Replacement of Beatle Paul McCartney”
You can read the original article I posted back in 2012 here (although I’ve added a few links and updates lower down the article.)
So, take this or leave it – I’ve received all kinds of comments about it and am familiar with the pro and con arguments. I generally have concluded he must have been replaced, but I am not sure about the reason. One variant of the idea that is interesting is that the “original” Paul didn’t actually die – and this could better explain the reasons why his family and friends haven’t spoken out in quite the way one might expect.