It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Dakudo
Please be kind enough to point out the "differences in the nose tip" in this comp I have previously posted (but no PIDDER has been able to rebut):
Originally posted by aorAki there are differences in the nose tip, the ears and cetera....but you know, I think we're never going to see eye to eye.
There has been a consistent effort to try to debunk this theory and yet they seem to pay no real attention to the obvious differences in their comparisons...preferring to brush them aside in favour of the overall.
Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor.Conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
Originally posted by aorAki
Yes, I do understand Occam's Razor, thanks for your condescension and I do understand the Scientific method and the application of visual details to evaluate differences and similarites and |I also understand that TPTB would like for us all to think like you do because then there would be no resistance, but from what I have observed, read and accumulated it seems to me that something did happen around the end of 1966 and that it was sinister. I can't provide the mechanisms but I can say that the man we know as Sir Paul today is not the same man as the Paul McCartney of pre-1967 (thereabouts).
Have you considered that you may very well not understand what you are seeing? Anyone can cut and paste from photography websites etc and yes, it is true that when regarding optics there will be differences due to various factors, but it is also true that when one factors in /out these factors there are still differences which, it appears, you are in massive denial about no doubt because of some diminished mental faculties (see, I can condescend as well).
What can you explain to me about the discrepancies in height, shoe size etc?
Using Occam's Razor, the shoe size would suggest two different people.
Originally posted by ANOK
And again, as had been mentioned, the one part that makes up the shape of the face that doesn't change is the skull, and guess what? The parts of Maccas faces that are set by the shape of his skull, like eye sockets, have been proven to be exactly the same in the young and old Macca.
If you don't believe me then just re-read through the whole thread.
Originally posted by yahpete
The only problem I have with the PID theory is that when John Lennon had his last interview back in 1980(Playboy), he was never suggestive that PM was a fake.
Originally posted by aorAki
Using Occam's Razor, the shoe size would suggest two different people.
...Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed 'theoretical scrutiny' tests, and which are equally well-supported by the evidence.[35],,,
en.wikipedia.org...-razors
...a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one... For instance, classical physics is simpler than more recent theories; nonetheless it should not be preferred over them, because it is demonstrably wrong in certain respects...
Id.
Originally posted by ANOK
Show me the forensic evidence they're different or shut up.
...Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni are an odd pair: she is un'anatomopatologa, he a computer scientist. She is an expert in the recognition craniometrico, he puts the potential of computers available to a discipline born in the mid nineteenth century: the craniometria note. According to Zingarelli, "is the science that deals with the measurement of the skull in relation to anthropology and comparative all'Anatomia. Now, to identify a person has absolute damage the two exams: the fingerprints and the DNA (if the sampling is done properly, which is not always the case). In the absence of fingertips and DNA samples of the methodology used all'antropometria identification and, in particular, to craniometria, based on some specific points. In the face of anyone, unchangeable and codified by the French nell'Ottocento Paul Broca. What are these? In scientific terms we could not define the distance between the pupils, the intersection between the nose and arched sopraccigliari the point where the base of the nose is detached from the upper lip, the shape of the jaw and Regulation, the ear. Then there's the shape of the skull.
In general, however, prefers to speak topographic anatomy, rather than specific points, to "regions", because within a few inches of skin can be more useful to establish similarities and differences. The Anthropometrics and craniometria, as have an nineteenth century are the basis of biometrics, the science used today for personal recognition by the most sophisticated intelligence of the world. Vast database of biometric data of terrorists are quickly and looked cross and, based on algorithms generated by the points of the face, reveal the true identity of people shot from cameras or photographed airports. As a Carlesi and Gavazzeni, meet their responsibilities and, as happens in the show, really see what we humans can not even imagine...
ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
Fabio Gigante Andriola and Alessandra | 15 July 2009
/mw83db
Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
A little something about the scientists that proved Paul was replaced. This is a machine translation from the Italian, so not the best, but understandable.
...Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni are an odd pair: she is un'anatomopatologa, he a computer scientist. She is an expert in the recognition craniometrico, he puts the potential of computers available to a discipline born in the mid nineteenth century: the craniometria note. According to Zingarelli, "is the science that deals with the measurement of the skull in relation to anthropology and comparative all'Anatomia. Now, to identify a person has absolute damage the two exams: the fingerprints and the DNA (if the sampling is done properly, which is not always the case). In the absence of fingertips and DNA samples of the methodology used all'antropometria identification and, in particular, to craniometria, based on some specific points. In the face of anyone, unchangeable and codified by the French nell'Ottocento Paul Broca. What are these? In scientific terms we could not define the distance between the pupils, the intersection between the nose and arched sopraccigliari the point where the base of the nose is detached from the upper lip, the shape of the jaw and Regulation, the ear. Then there's the shape of the skull.
In general, however, prefers to speak topographic anatomy, rather than specific points, to "regions", because within a few inches of skin can be more useful to establish similarities and differences. The Anthropometrics and craniometria, as have an nineteenth century are the basis of biometrics, the science used today for personal recognition by the most sophisticated intelligence of the world. Vast database of biometric data of terrorists are quickly and looked cross and, based on algorithms generated by the points of the face, reveal the true identity of people shot from cameras or photographed airports. As a Carlesi and Gavazzeni, meet their responsibilities and, as happens in the show, really see what we humans can not even imagine...
ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
Fabio Gigante Andriola and Alessandra | 15 July 2009
/mw83db
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
Show me the forensic evidence they're different or shut up.
And no, do not say the Italians because that article does not provide ANY evidence whatsoever for a difference. Please read it again and note where it says their is no conclusive evidence, did you miss that part?
You can believe what you read if it makes you feel special but I prefer to use my own eyes, and trust me as a graphic artist, photographer, and engineering drafter my eyes are good, and I understand the effect light, camera lens size, focal length, film type, processing type, facial expressions, age, and many other points can effect how a photograph can make someone appear. And what's worse all of this has been shown which you continue to ignore. It's like a child who hides his face thinking you can't see them. 'If I ignore the evidence against my delusions then it isn't evidence'...
This thread is simply an insult to our intelligence.