Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by seaofgreen

AFAICT, they (voiceprints in general) are too inexact to be of much use.

Where do you guys come up w/ this stuff? Do you just make it up as you go along? Here's a fact - voiceprints are used to identify people. Here is some actual LAW on that (not my opinion).

[T]he term "record" means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, ... other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph... 5 USCS § 552a(4).

[T]he term "means of identification" means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any--
...
(B) unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation; ...

United States v. Hawes, 523 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. Pa. 2008); United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. S.C. 2008).

... [T]he district court found that duty titles were not comparable to captured immutable characteristics such as finger or voice prints or photographs. The district court reached these conclusions because an individual's duty title changes over time, because multiple people can concomitantly have the same or similar duty titles, and because each individual has predecessor and successor holders of the same duty titles. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the district court. In circumstances where duty titles pertain to one and only one individual, such as the examples of identifying particulars provided in the statutory text (finger or voice print or photograph), duty titles may indeed be "identifying particulars" as that term is used in the definition of "record" in the Privacy Act. For the reasons detailed by the district court, however, the [**9] duty titles in this [*188] case are not "identifying particulars" because they do not pertain to one and only one individual.

Pierce v. Dep't of the United States Air Force, 512 F.3d 184, 188 (5th Cir. Miss. 2007).

Please, look up the law. The citation has been provided for you.

Originally posted by seaofgreen

Well I know he does a good Elvis impression, so that might have been one of them

But this does bring up the point of voice doubles.

Voice-only decoys

These are generally exceptionally good impersonators, who are used to give the impression that their 'target' is conducting a radio interview, telephone call or other vocal assignment...

Harry S. Truman/unknown (1947)

Edwin Wright served the U.S. federal government under President Harry S. Truman as General staff G-2 and Middle East specialist, Washington (1945-46); on the Bureau of Near East-South Asian-African Affairs, Department of State (1946 onwards); country specialist (1946-47); advisor U.N. affairs (1947-50); and advisor on intelligence (1950-55).

According to Wright, an unknown individual impersonated President Truman's voice on the telephone in order to sway foreign leaders into voting in particular ways at the United Nations.

There are two documents from Truman himself alleging this, both currently lodged at the Truman Presidential Library.[24]

In the first, Truman wrote:

"Something's going on and I don't know what it is. Somebody called up the President of Haiti and he said that it was I. [...] He said, 'We want you to vote for the Zionist program.' As a result the President of Haiti changed his vote to satisfy what he thought was me. I don't know who this fellow was that called him up."
Wright comments: "In other words, somebody impersonated President Truman and threatened the President of Haiti. There were people who used President Truman's voice and name and he didn't know who they were."[25]

Indira Gandhi/RS Nagarwala (1971)
On 24 May 1971, an ex-Indian Army Captain and serving intelligence officer, Rustom Sohr Nagarwala, was able to take out 6 million Rupees from the State Bank of India's Parliament Street branch by "mimicking the voice of [Indian prime minister] Indira Gandhi" to chief cashier Ved Prakash Malhotra...

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 30-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by aorAki
I consider it possible to replicate the nuances that one musician possesses...surely you would have heard some cover bands where if you didn't know they were a cover band you would think they were the original.

I used to play bass in a cover band & I got to know how the bassist of the band we were covering played very well - how he did runs, etc. It's definitely possible to mimic someone's style... Of course, there's always the possibility of attributing the playing that doesn't sound so much like the original person to "growth as a musician" or whatever else. However, it's hard to explain how someone can write brilliant songs that easily hit No. 1 in UK & USA, to barely being able to get a No. 5 in Sweden :-P

[edit on 30-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

What we`re talking about here is a double - Someone who literally took over the life of another man, and no stone was left unturned until he appeared in every respect (not just physically) as his replacement.

Here`s an example of a lookalike fooling not only the public, but also members of a famous museum in Vienna. The lookalike was of Beyonce Knowles and sent by a local radio station -

www.austriantimes.at...


Another great example of a lookalike prank which fooled a Mexican football club was of former England manager Sven Goran Eriksson -

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.dailymail.co.uk...


If people can be fooled by simple lookalikes then the skies the limit for proper doubles in the world of celebrity!

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
What we`re talking about here is a double - Someone who literally took over the life of another man, and no stone was left unturned until he appeared in every respect (not just physically) as his replacement.

Some of us are onto this imposter-replacement program they've got going on.

...But if the lookalike is a double for a political or other official figure, the results could be far more important...

The potential strategic uses of such impersonators are immediately apparent and have been made use of many times throughout history...

Since deception is the whole purpose of employing a political decoy, there are many instances of alleged decoying which remain uncertain.

Joe R. Reeder, an undersecretary for the U.S. Army from 1993 to 1997, has gone on record with claims that a number of figures around the world have or have had decoys, including Manuel Noriega, Raoul Cédras, Enver Hoxha, Fidel Castro and Osama bin Laden.[5]

Of Noriega's alleged four decoys, Reeder said: "They were good. They practiced his gait, his manner of speech and his modus operandi – what he did during the day and night." ...

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by kshaund
reply to post by Dakudo

 

And I'm still waiting for one example of a rumor that has persisted for twenty or more years on anyone famous. Or do you expect to only ask questions and not reply? And as I suggested to pmexplorer, instead of spending hours a day typing the same thing over and over, go and do your own voice analysis and prove it wrong - you're just bellowing like others, not adding substance or logic, just emotion. Waste of time all around....

I think you're confusing me with Faulcon, The only thing I have repeated is my request for her to stop repetitively posting the same material again and again and again as she has done throughout this thread.

And I am not the only one who has asked this of her.

And who said I spend 'several hours a day' that's hilarious

It's quite easy to see how threatened the 'pid' believers feel as soon
as someone poses them a question they feel uncomfortable with, as you all suddenly go on the defensive and resort to personal attacks as you'd rather ignore all the questions and keep on whistling dixie than actually come to terms with the fact that there is, and I'll say it again, ZERO credible evidence
of Paul being dead or there being a living replacement / double call it what you will.

But carry on trying to convince the weak minded and easily led anyway.

This one is just plain funny :p

So, this is Paul in the studio for Revolver:



This is Bill:



I'm picking up on a slight difference in taste :-P

[edit on 30-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Some of us are onto this imposter-replacement program they've got going on.

...But if the lookalike is a double for a political or other official figure, the results could be far more important...

The potential strategic uses of such impersonators are immediately apparent and have been made use of many times throughout history...

Since deception is the whole purpose of employing a political decoy, there are many instances of alleged decoying which remain uncertain.

Joe R. Reeder, an undersecretary for the U.S. Army from 1993 to 1997, has gone on record with claims that a number of figures around the world have or have had decoys, including Manuel Noriega, Raoul Cédras, Enver Hoxha, Fidel Castro and Osama bin Laden.[5]

Of Noriega's alleged four decoys, Reeder said: "They were good. They practiced his gait, his manner of speech and his modus operandi – what he did during the day and night." ...

en.wikipedia.org...

That`s interesting to read Faulcon - There was also much speculation over Saddam Husseins execution, that the man executed was really one of the ex-Iraqi Presidents doubles.


Seemingly when his wife went to speak with him in prison before the execution... on seeing "her husband" she said -

"This is not my husband, it`s his double, where is my husband? Take me to my husband!"

aangirfan.blogspot.com...


As I`ve said before, this is a very sensitive area and it`s no surprise debunker lapdogs (like pmexplorer, dakudo, diabolo, magnolia etc) are here every day to... "keep people`s minds right" lol.

If it ever became public knowledge that Paul McCartney was replaced one of the next questions would be... how widespread is the use of doppelgangers?


If people can be duped by a false "rock icon," then how deep does the rabbit hole really go?




[edit on 30-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]

Originally posted by pmexplorer


But carry on trying to convince the weak minded and easily led (sic) anyway.

(*snip*)

So, just say that what has been proposed has a grain of truth to it...is it not then the ones who are saying PIA that are the weak-minded and easily-led as they are buying the deception hook line and sinker?

See, we can carry on like this ad infinitum, ad nauseum and forever and ever jostling between name calling and obfuscation, or we can actually maturely discuss and examine the evidence

You say there is no credible evidence, but you are ignoring things and are calling into question your own observational skills as the comps posted to try and show that Paul is Paul and not Faul are obviously different....sure, not in the overarching and general sense which is where I admit it is easy to get hung up on, but in the nitty gritty details that require and open mind and a keen eye to see...
There are changes in facial structure, nose shape, eyes (colour and shape) eyebrows (all over the place!) hair part, teeth, lips, cheeks, width of the bridge of the nose, ears and cetera.

I don't mind dissenting views and I think it's healthy to debate from different sides of the fence, but at the end of the day it grows tiresome when the comments are thinly-veiled insults ("oh we don't insult" they plead, and then "we insult in return to yours") which it appears is perhaps a new tack of obfuscation (god I love that word) that the PIAers have developed.

Just as they are annoyed because people don't answer their questions specifically or post what they consider to be poor compilations, they are as guilty of this if not more...

Everything I have read here leads me to think that something is up. I haven't seen a decent anti-proposition yet and I think it will be difficult to achieve without Faul's/Paul's help (i.e. DNA test) and it appears obvious that that won't happen sometime soon....

but follow the breadcrumbs...it doesn't sit right.


*) ATS General Discussion Etiquette - PLEASE READ

[edit on 30 Aug 2009 by Hellmutt]

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
There was also much speculation over Saddam Husseins execution, that the man executed was really one of the ex-Iraqi Presidents doubles.

Yeah, here's a thread on Saddam:
doppels.proboards.com...

It it ever became public knowledge that Paul McCartney was replaced the next question would be how widespread is the use of doppelgangers? If people can be duped by a false "rock icon," then how deep does the rabbit hole really go!

This is an important point. Paul's looks were literally scrutinized by hordes of women, & they still managed to pull this off. Who wants to look at pics of ugly, old politicians? Sorry, but if Paul had looked like Kissinger, I sure as hell would not have noticed a switch :-P See what I'm getting at?

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Yeah, here's a thread on Saddam:
doppels.proboards.com...

Cool, will read through it!

This is an important point. Paul's looks were literally scrutinized by hordes of women, & they still managed to pull this off. Who wants to look at pics of ugly, old politicians? Sorry, but if Paul had looked like Kissinger, I sure as hell would not have noticed a switch :-P See what I'm getting at?

You tart... joking!

Originally posted by Uncle Benny
You tart... joking!

LoL! Ok, now that I know about imposter-replacements, I will examine ugly, old politicians more carefully. But before...? Nah! :-P

Originally posted by aorAki
I don't mind dissenting views and I think it's healthy to debate from different sides of the fence, but at the end of the day it grows tiresome when the comments are thinly-veiled insults ("oh we don't insult" they plead, and then "we insult in return to yours") which it appears is perhaps a new tack of obfuscation (god I love that word) that the PIAers have developed.

You`re right, it`s good to have healthy debate. Unfortunately you`ll find it`s the same hardcore group of debunkers/disinfo who will hijack the thread as often as possible (they`ll even change their names if needs be, but they`ll be here).

We all have jobs to go to and lives to live - but these guys work on the net to derail threads and "stem the flow" as it were. That`s how it is, you`ll see it play out.




[edit on 30-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
So, this is Paul in the studio for Revolver:

This is Bill:

I'm picking up on a slight difference in taste :-P

[edit on 30-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Haha great stuff - Once you get untampered images, the differences just jump out at you.

The PIA'ers are using a Paul-Paul comp (both pre Nov 1966) to support their theory that Paul wasn't replaced:



And they're using a comp where Paul's face has been stretched to look like Bill's:





His face was actually very round:



Bill's face - not round.




[edit on 30-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by Uncle Benny


You`re right, it`s good to have healthy debate. Unfortunately you`ll find it`s the same hardcore group of debunkers/disinfo who will hijack the thread as often as possible (they`ll even change their names if needs be, but they`ll be here).

We all have jobs to go to and lives to live - but these guys work on the net to derail threads and "stem the flow" as it were. That`s how it is, you`ll see it play out.




[edit on 30-8-2009 by Uncle Benny]

Oooh, I love it....a conspiracy within a conspiracy...this is saucy stuff and as far as regarding the PIA crew : " nil bastardo carborundum".

I can appreciate their attempts and I think some of them genuinely do believe that Paul is still Paul and that is fine because it's opinion.
It may be couched as fact, but yet there is not sufficient explanation from the PIA crew regarding all the clues, changes and inconsistencies.

Originally posted by Uncle Benny

Re: Rotten Apple 62N

Bill says he worked a couple of factory jobs? That's not a part of "official" Beatles history, is it? IAAP is constantly nailing that guy - lol :-P

So, now the PIA'ers have admitted to using pre-replacement pics of Paul in their comps. I fail to see how this supports their position that Paul wasn't replaced in mid-late 1966. All it does is show that they're not honest & try to trick people.



Dakudo/Focrates:

The 'Bill' pic is from Yesterday and Today:

www.davidicke.com...

That album came out in June 1966.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]