Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by Hellmutt
There's also another video in existance, where George is trying hard to teach "Paul" to play a simple riff on the bass.


If you can find that I'd love to see it.

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


That description doesn't really fit the video...looks more like Paul doesn't want to play the riff georgel wants him to...at the end of the video, Paul's fretwork looks good to me...not like a novice bass player, even with a pick...not sure what that's supposed to prove?

whoops...no message

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Cole DeSteele]

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


You have this backwards, it's not George trying to show Paul how to play a bass part, it's Georges part that doesn't fit that they're arguing about. That's why George is defensive and Paul is trying not to let his frustration show by trying to be diplomatic.

That is not the whole clip, it's missing the start where Paul is actually trying to demonstrate the GUITAR riff to George, for an hour, because George is not getting the timing and feel right to Pauls satisfaction.

They're working on Pauls song "Two of Us", it's from the movie 'Let It Be'. The part they have problems with is the middle where the GUITAR does a riff.

This was a typical argument where Paul is trying to control everything that is played, one of the reasons the other three resented Paul.

Don't you hear Paul saying, 'I'm trying to help you'? And George saying, 'I'll play whatever you want me too, or not play at all, whatever pleases you'? And John at the end says, 'lets listen to it to see what the GUITAR sounds like'.

Sry guys another massive fail in your 'research'. You really shouldn't try fooling real Beatles fans...

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Wally Hope]

Originally posted by Wally Hope
reply to post by Bldrvgr

 

www.flickr.com...

Please read the caption. If you did a search like I suggested you can find lots of proof of brown/hazel eyes looking green in photos.

www.flickr.com...

Photos do not always reproduce colours exactly due to light and other factors.

Omg why ? if there is a ton of examples of this why do you pic two people that profess that thier eyes are hazel but on select Photo's they show up green ?!?!? Maybe i am not understanding your stance on this... You suggesting that Pauls eyes are still hazel, but every shot taken of him turns green ?

The first dude, Lets discuss: do you believe in the magical settings where you stand by walls and everything is just a shade of brown ? so your more brownish ? Or did you not bother to look through the portfolio ? I'm guessing your actually thinking there was no camera settings and brush ups involved with the orignal pic, he just looks like that every day and everwhere and edits his other images to make him look darker....

Second guy. Yeah his caption.. odd occurance his camera see's green, well hell his other photos afterward are hazel ...

But this puts on a nice perspective for me. The farther shots always show up browner, but never at a green overaly tint. Paul is still amazing in eye color change.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Bldrvgr]

This was using facial recognition software. The match percentage isn't very high for supposedly the same person.

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


Do us all a favour and use a different person in your software and show us what the result is. To be scientific you need to show how accurate your test is. How do I know if the software is even good enough to rely on? Just because it seems to support your hypothesis it doesn't mean it's correct. Until you do that your test means nothing.

That software is not designed for forensics, just to recognize a few key facial features. I've already posted evidence that facial recognition software does not work well with low resolution pictures, i.e. anything off the internet, or when the face is not straight forward or showing expression. So again your test is flawed, and no one would expect a 100% result.

Another big fail, yet you will continue posting your silly comparisons and talking about his eyes, OMG his eyes have changed colour!

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Wally Hope]

From "Paul is dead" on Wikipedia:

Biometric analysis

In 2009, two Italians, Francesco Gavazzeni (IT analyst) and Carlesi Gabriella (medico-legal), studied images of Paul McCartney taken before and after the alleged death, and claimed there is high probability that it is not the same person, based on analysis of the shape of the skull and jaw, the curve of the jaw, the ear of palate and teeth.[17].

17. ^ Wired Italia, "Chiedi chi era quel «Beatle»", July-August 2009

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Wally Hope
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob

 

You have this backwards, it's not George trying to show Paul how to play a bass part, it's Georges part that doesn't fit that they're arguing about. That's why George is defensive and Paul is trying not to let his frustration show by trying to be diplomatic.

That is not the whole clip, it's missing the start where Paul is actually trying to demonstrate the GUITAR riff to George, for an hour, because George is not getting the timing and feel right to Pauls satisfaction.

They're working on Pauls song "Two of Us", it's from the movie 'Let It Be'. The part they have problems with is the middle where the GUITAR does a riff.

This was a typical argument where Paul is trying to control everything that is played, one of the reasons the other three resented Paul.

Don't you hear Paul saying, 'I'm trying to help you'? And George saying, 'I'll play whatever you want me too, or not play at all, whatever pleases you'? And John at the end says, 'lets listen to it to see what the GUITAR sounds like'.

Sry guys another massive fail in your 'research'. You really shouldn't try fooling real Beatles fans...

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Wally Hope]

Totally agree with you. This video is not showing Paul unable to play the riff. It is a very well known quarrel from the movie "Let it Be" about George's riff.

It seems that "My Heritage" software provides only 86% affinity comparing the very same pic of Paul....

[edit on 1-8-2009 by magnolia_xx]

[edit on 1-8-2009 by magnolia_xx]

PS is there any good soul here who can explain to me how to post a photo from a website here, it seems I am not able to...

Paul's eye color was not the same as Faul's. Faul's eyes are green, not hazel.









[edit on 1-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Hey I heard Billy Shepherd was replaced by a remote control dummy back in '95. Stage props have really come a long way.

reply to post by faulconandsnowjob


Once again hopefully for the last time, hazel is a combination of brown and green...

...Sixty-percent of the twins fall in the 'blue' category, 26% in 'green/hazel' and 14% 'brown.'

"Surprisingly," 74% of the green/hazel eyes had a brown ring around the pupil. "This major pattern may explain a lot of eye color that is commonly referred to as Hazel."

www.usatoday.com...

Eye color also can change with age. This happens in 10 to 15 percent of the Caucasian population (people who generally have lighter eye colors). For instance, my once very brown eyes are now hazel, a combination of brown and green. However, some hazel eyes actually get darker with age.

www.allaboutvision.com...

Now please can we end this nonsense about his eyes?

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Eye color also can change with age. This happens in 10 to 15 percent of the Caucasian population (people who generally have lighter eye colors).
www.allaboutvision.com...

Is this supposed to explain how Paul's eyes went from brown/hazel to green in less than one year? Paul's eyes were brown/hazel, then suddenly in early 1967, they're green. He would have been 24-25 at that time. How does "Eye color also can change with age" even begin to explain that? On top of that, "This happens in 10 to 15 percent of the Caucasian population" - a small percentage. So, Paul not only belonged to a small percentage of people whose eye color can change, but he also belonged to an even smaller/non-existent percentage of people who can grow 2 inches in their mid-20's.




I noticed the height issue is consistently ignored... Oh, & of course, his facial features also changed, as the forensic scientists proved. That's a whole lot of changes in one person in a very short space of time. A lot of people are seeing thru this scam.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Eye color also can change with age. This happens in 10 to 15 percent of the Caucasian population (people who generally have lighter eye colors).
www.allaboutvision.com...

Is this supposed to explain how Paul's eyes went from brown/hazel to green in less than one year?

From WP: Hazel eyes are due to a combination of Rayleigh scattering and a moderate amount of melanin in the iris' anterior border layer.[7][25] Hazel eyes often appear to shift in color from a light brown to a medium golden-green. A number of studies using three-point scales have assigned hazel to be the medium-color between the lightest shade of blue and darkest shade of brown. Hazel mostly consists of Brown and Green. The dominant color in the eye can either be green or light brown/gold.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54] This can sometimes produce a multicolored iris, i.e., an eye that is light brown near the pupil and charcoal or amber/dark green on the outer part of the iris (and vice versa) when observed in sunlight. Hazel is commonly found in Europe, the Middle East, Americas, Central Asia and parts of South Asia.
Definitions of the eye color hazel vary: it is sometimes considered to be synonymous with light-brown or gold.[48][50][53][55] In North America, hazel is often used to describe eyes that appear to change color.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Paul's eyes were brown/hazel, then suddenly in early 1967, they're green. He would have been 24-25 at that time. How does "Eye color also can change with age" even begin to explain that? On top of that, "This happens in 10 to 15 percent of the Caucasian population" - a small percentage.

10 to 15 percent is one in every 7-10 i.e. only slightly less likely than throwing a six with a die.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
he also belonged to an even smaller/non-existent percentage of people who can grow 2 inches in their mid-20's.

re Jim pics: Jim has had to stand on tip-toes in the left pic so as not to have his face obscured.

re Ringo pics: Wow, this conclusively proves it's Fingo in the second pic!
(or that Ringo is closer to the camera in the 1st pic, Paul is closer in the 2nd).

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I noticed the height issue is consistently ignored... Oh, & of course, his facial features also changed, as the forensic scientists proved. That's a whole lot of changes in one person in a very short space of time. A lot of people are seeing thru this scam.

No the height issue wasn't ignored, re-read the thread you seem to keep missing stuff. It's just the angle of the picture, or the people are not standing straight up and are bent at the knees, or something.

No one has ignored anything except you. Why haven't you done what I suggested with your face recognition software? You claim your research to be scientific yet you won't prove your test works, why is that? Are you scared that you might find I'm right?

There is no scam to see through just you and your silly pics.

How can you continue this crap with all of your 'clues' shot down? Oh I know, ignore the facts and keep posting more crap.

Hi Faulcon, I noticed that you are posting the same photos again and again and again. Always the same ones... we have seen them, really. But it seems that not many people are being convinced by your proofs of Paul's replacement.
In the last pics you posted, I see hazel/green eyes in both the pics.
One of them has a kinda reddish light which partially masks the green component of the irises' color. That's it.
I found lots of photos on the web about Paul before 1966, where he looks quite taller compared to the other boys, just like after 1966.
Look at these:
www.poster.net...
media.photobucket.com...
Paul is much taller than Ringo. He always was, before and after 1966. (yeah, this is hot news!!! Who could imagine that?)
These photos were taken before 1966, I suppose Paul had not been murdered yet at that time).
By the way, in the last one you can see that Paul's chin is identical to the supposed fake's chin.
Unless Paul's chin was transplanted on Bill Campbell's face - along with his eyelids, his nose, his lips et cetera, and oh, don't forget the vocal cords, I dare to say that Faul is a mere fabrication, and Paul is much alive.