Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by magnolia_xx
And she cannot reply because it is obvious that Paul McCartney has hazel eyes (not brown)

Hazel isn't green

Oh no! Not this baloney again.

Hazel eyes can shift color from brown to green.

I guess we will have to go through this here.

Hazel

This iris shows a mixture of brown, green, and amber colors.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 dark 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.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52] 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.

en.wikipedia.org...

See thes three shots below. The first is of pre '67 Paul. The next two are post '66. The Paul one is green. The other two show one brown, one green.

www.usatoday.com...

If you are one of those lucky people that have hazel eyes, you can change the look of them as fast as you can apply new makeup. All of the colors that are contained in your peepers can be brought out, one by one, with a few makeup tips for changing your hazel eyes.

www.essortment.com...

Yes. Hazel eyes can look green.

Yes. Hazel eyes can look green.

They shift colors depending on surroundings. Don't take my word for it. Makeup companies give instructions on how to change the color. Harrison Ford has hazel eyes. They look different colors at different times.

The fact that hazel eyes shift colors is widely known and documented.

Oh, and hazel eyes can look green.



[edit on 27-8-2009 by edmond dantes]

Originally posted by pmexplorer
That is at the very least the fourth or fifth time you have posted those images on this thread Faulcon.

Were the first few times not enough?

Apparently not, since some people are still arguing there was "no" height difference, when there clearly was.

Originally posted by pmexplorer

I was referring to the fact that faulcon stated that she knows for a fact what happened.

I said I know Paul is dead, but I never said I know for a fact exactly what happened.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Dakudo
Merely stating your OPINION of these things does not make them facts.

It's a fact that there is a height difference. This can be demonstrated by photographic evidence using other people's heights as reference points. These are straight on shots, so you can't say it's "camera angles" or lighting or any other rationalization. They are simply not the same height.

Where's the height difference here Faulcon?



That completely debunks your photo. It is NOT a fact that there is a height difference - as the above photo shows.

Guess some people just don't understand the simple concept of camera angles and height affecting the appearance of someone's height.

Incredible, really.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by pmexplorer
That is at the very least the fourth or fifth time you have posted those images on this thread Faulcon.

Were the first few times not enough?

Apparently not, since some people are still arguing there was "no" height difference, when there clearly was.

Er, where?

Same quirk in the iris. Same guy.

Same ear. Same guy.


[edit on 27-8-2009 by edmond dantes]

[edit on 27-8-2009 by edmond dantes]

Different expressions and angles: ALWAYS THE SAME:

There can be absolutely no doubt about it.

PID is dead.

The Fade:



[edit on 27-8-2009 by edmond dantes]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by pmexplorer
That is at the very least the fourth or fifth time you have posted those images on this thread Faulcon.

Were the first few times not enough?

Apparently not, since some people are still arguing there was "no" height difference, when there clearly was.

Still waiting for Faulcon to explain where the height difference is in these other photos, compared to her ONE photo:

Faulcon?

Originally posted by Dakudo
When you show evidence that you are a lawyer, then your point may have some relevancy. At the moment I do not believe you are a lawyer.

I think the fact that I'm constantly referring to laws is evidence of my legal education & lawyer tendencies. I don't really care what you believe. The fact is I have a law degree & an advanced law degree, but I'm not going to post my diplomas on here to prove that.

Remember - you claimed Paul didn't have freckles. You claim the Wired scientists proved Paul was replaced.

Paul's & Faul's freckles don't match.
I do claim the forensic science proves Paul was replaced.

3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Not one shred of PID evidence has EVER been presented to a court or jury.

So? What's your point? Has any evidence of 9/11 being an inside job ever been presented to a court or jury?

Your definitions do not apply to PID evidence.

LOL! The definition of evidence or relevant evidence doesn't change depending on the subject matter. Nice try, tho.

And Until you have a "fact finder" to find in favour of your evidence, your evidence cannot be regarded as credible in law.

All the people reading this thread are "fact finders" & many are seeing that Paul was replaced. I'm sorry, but the legal standard is not "credible evidence." It is "relevant evidence."

From the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Rule 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

That doesn't apply to photos without the testimony of a professional expert.

That's not true, but I've noticed it's an argument PIA'ers w/ no legal education like to make. Photos would definitely come in to establish identity.

[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).

First, the presumption is that "All relevant evidence is admissible":

Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

www.law.cornell.edu...

So, then, if you want to admit photos, you look at issues of authentication:

Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification

(a) General provision.

The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.

(b) Illustrations.

By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:

(1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be. [note - itdoesn't have to be an expert]
...
(3) Comparison by trier or expert witness. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated.

(4) Distinctive characteristics and the like. Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.
...
(8) Ancient documents or data compilation. Evidence that a document or data compilation, in any form, (A) is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity, (B) was in a place where it, if authentic, would likely be, and (C) has been in existence 20 years or more at the time it is offered.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Some of these photos may even be self-authenticating:

Rule 902. Self-authentication

Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following:

(6) Newspapers and periodicals. Printed materials purporting to be newspapers or periodicals.

www.law.cornell.edu...

So, I'm pretty confident the photos & other evidence would come in one way or another - hypothetically speaking of course, b/c there's no way this would ever come to trial. Bettina Krischbin tried to claim fraud on the blood test, but was smacked down.

A lot of people find forensic evidence to be quite credible.

Forensic evidence based on photos taken off a PID internet chat board is not credible. Sorry you think it is. Another reason why I don't believe you are a lawyer.

Well, like I said, I don't really care what you believe. I have 2 law diplomas that prove otherwise. Anyway, I've shown that the experts can tell when photos have been tampered w/. You don't know where they got their photos. A lot of the photos are from official sources - magazines, newspapers, etc.

A SERIOUS forensic investigation would have used ORIGINAL photos.

Why do they need the original? You don't even need the original in a court of law.

Upon what criteria do you base that assumption on - particularly since you don't speak Italian?

I posted the part of the article where they were talking about how photos were doctored.

...And the surprises do not end there because the relentless Gavazzeni, like a boxer who feels close the ko of the opponent, not the spring taken on the photo where McCartney, unaware, mentions a somewhat smug 'perplexed: "To the naked eye is known what will be a constant in the photos from that moment on, a couple of photo retouching fairly obvious to an expert eye. There is a gray area that covers the outside corner of left eye. Only for some time not seen before. And going to peep at that point, where for years there was one dark spot, now there is a cross between a scar and a sign of skin stretched like an aesthetic touch. The most immediate explanation is that probably, already in the sixties, has been made for an action on the eyes but it is still something imperfect, that for a long time has gone forward a mask. " Then there is a detail concerning the conformation of the skull: "Indeed, the impression is that the shape of the head was given a 'more rounded', Gavazzeni says:" So in the reduced effective length, by a trick used at the time and realized that being printed. Eff CTIVITIES change the conformation of the skull of an adult is something impossible. Yet, judging from the photos, is exactly what it shows...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db

The eyes & eyebrows don't match up at all. They're clearly from 2 different faces.

The picture matches very well to pictures of Paul. But of course the two sides won't match up, because they are two different sides of the face.

This has to do with Facial Symmetry:

Facial Symmetry - - Which Side of Your Face is Your Good Side?
hubpages.com...

Many times on TV and the movies, you will see some star or famous person saying "photograph my good side." That is because a person's face is not exactly the same on both sides. Each side is different.

So, the fact that one side of Paul's face does not exactly match up to the other is not a surprise, it is to be expected.

[edit on 27-8-2009 by edmond dantes]

[edit on 27-8-2009 by edmond dantes]

[edit on 27-8-2009 by edmond dantes]

Originally posted by Dakudo
Which part of this do you NOT understand????????????

Which part of this don't you understand?

...Gabriella Carlesi adds an additional element: "Compared to the previous picture, that of Sgt Pepper's show clearly that the commessura lip, that is the line formed by the lips of the two, it was suddenly stretched. Which obviously is not possible and that the whiskers can not camouflage. In other words, the phenomenon is all too frequently these days, the lips can be inflated and increased in volume, but the width of the lip commessura can not vary that much. May be slight, but this is not the case for the photos examined: here the difference between the before and after is too strong to have been caused by any surgery...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db

Surgery can't explain the difference in the lips. So, what was it other than a double?

...The mandibular curve between the two sets of photos showed a discrepancy of over 6 percent, well beyond the threshold of error. But there was more. Changed the development of the mandibular profile: before 1966 each side of the jaw is composed of two curves Net, since 1967 appears to be a single curve. There is therefore a curve morphological different...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db

The jaw line doesn't match at all. How do you explain that? Paul obviously didn't have surgery to reconstruct his face.

...Technically called trago. All we have two, one by ear, but the characteristics are different for every human being. "In Germany, a recognition procedure craniometrico, identification of the right ear even tantamount to fingerprint, ie the collection of fingerprints," recalls Carlesi. But what trago? It is the small cartilage covered with skin that overhangs the entrance to the ear and ear canal, like the whole ear, not be changed surgically. How then to explain the differences between the right ear of Paul McCartney in a previous snapshot to 1966 and probably a built in the late nineties? It is not only to betray trago a different conformation as well as other parts, just above the ear canal entrance, measurements and dell'antelice propeller. Things that ordinary mortals might seem irrelevant or unclear, but instead, every day, allowing the experts to locate and identify persons, bodies, photographs...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db

This ear difference can't be changed surgically, so how do you explain the difference other than Paul was imposter-replaced?

Originally posted by Dakudo
Most people disagree, sorry. You are in the minority on this. You'll have to come up with something better than that as "evidence".

Most people buy the "official" story about the JFK assassination, too. I'm not really concerned about that.

Originally posted by Dakudo

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Dakudo
The forensic scientists admitted their research was inconclusive. Stop dealing in misinformation and start dealing in FACTS.

The fact is that the faces don't match up. And yes, forensics do prove that.

The forensics DO NOT prove that at all. From the Wired article:

Io ancora adesso non so cosa dire, anzi cosa dirmi», ammette Gavazzeni che di McCartney, chiunque egli sia, si dichiara fan. Mentre Carlesi si limita a osservare: «I dubbi sono molto forti e le discordanze numerose, ma non ci si può esprimere ancora con assoluta certezza. Soprattutto perché parliamo di un personaggio così noto e per di più vivo.

Davanti a un cadavere sarei più netta: i dati emersi mi avrebbero indotto e autorizzato a procedere con più esami approfonditi e dirimenti. Comunque, se sostituzione c'è stata, il vero capolavoro è stato quello di trovare un sosia con caratteristiche antropometriche tutto sommato molto vicine all'"originale"», ammette. «C'è da dire che l'analisi antropometrica va, necessariamente, corredata da esami di altro tipo per formulare una perizia certa al 100 per cento.

Translation from an Italian speaking poster on Icke:

"I still do not know what to say, or better still, what to say to myself", admits Gavazzeni, who declares to be a fan of McCartney - whoever he is. While Carlesi just remarks:

"The doubts are very strong, and there are many mismatches, but it is not possible to express any absolute certainty. This especially because we are speaking about such a famous, and furthermore alive, person. I would be more resolute if I were in front of a corpse: the results would have induced and autorized me to go on with more in-depth and deciding exams. Anyway, if a replacement happened, the real masterwork was to find a double whose anthropometric characteristics were very close to the 'original', she admits.

"We must say that anthropometric analyses must be necessarily accompanied by other exams to be able to formulate a 100% sure forensic report".

Your claim that the forensics "prove" anything is totally, completely and utterly false - FACT!

Your photoshopped photos are not very good. Done properly, the faces clearly match:

[edit on 27-8-2009 by Dakudo]

I've pointed out the the forensics experts' own comments on at least two other separate occasions. How their presentation & comments have been twisted into a cause for evidence of a complete case is beyond me. It doesn't even meet a standard here.

Great job on the comparisons, btw.

Originally posted by Dakudo
So quoting Spycraft proves that they put fake freckles on 'Faul'?

Ridiculous!

I'm not trying to be rude, but I think you lack some knowledge about what is possible. Since you think some things are "impossible," you don't recognize them, & are easily fooled.

I've also shown that photos have been doctored.

As above!

For ex:

The fake ears could have stood some improvement.

LOL!!!!

Yes, it is funny. It's funny how people fell for Faul's detachable ears.

You have shown NO evidence that the photos in question have been doctored! Thus, your claim is without any substantiation.

See above

Except there's plenty of evidence to support PID.

Don't take my quote out of context. It was made in relation to the photos you allege could have been doctored - without providing any supporting evidence for this claim.

See above. Also, closely examine this photo for signs of tampering:

And the "evidence" to support PID is not credible in most people's eyes.

I beg to differ. Many people consider forensic evidence to be credible. Photos are also credible, since they are used to establish identity. Voice prints, signatures, etc, are also credible.

I think you need to review the laws of evidence.

I think you need to stop trying to patronise me.

I think you need to stop making legal determinations w/out citing to any law or anything else to back up your assertions.

[edit on 27-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

Originally posted by Dakudo

Originally posted by Ethera

Originally posted by Dakudo

I know that pic was meant for a different comparison, but what I notice is the noses are completely different. The nose on the left is much smaller. It also does not have the length of the one on the right. The picture on the left indicates a man with an appearance of his face sliding off on the left, our right. The one on the right does not.

The left photograph also illustrates the roundness of the eyebrows, which the picture on the right does not have.

Interesting arguments from both sides.

[edit on 8/27/2009 by Ethera]

You have to consider that angles and camera lenses can make facial features seem different.

The following photo comp adequately proves my point. The photos were taken with different lenses:

Tell me - do those noses look the same shape and size in each photo?

When you do the measurements on this you will see comparatively large variances in the amount of skin presented on the sides of the mouth.

The jawline also measures quite differently as well. And these are photos taken minutes apart, of the same subject under the same lighting conditions, and from the same angle.

Imagine the differences that occur in photographs taken years apart, from different angles and in different lighting conditions.

Your explanation does not adequately prove anything other than two photo files of the same person have been altered by some means. The background alone leaves questions. The same alterations could have been accomplished with photo altering software.

One issue with the pics, same angle, background, etc., as you purport, is ifall variables had remained the same, the portion of the subjects right shoulder, on viewing left, could still be blurry, but would be a white lower and predominantly green upper blur, as the photo on the right clearly shows a forested area from that angle? Had he not moved, the background would not have changed so drastically as to blur brown and white, indicative of the building to his right, as opposed to the green and white evident in the second picture?

As I said before, regardless of which side the information stems from, I question it all, as I am on neither. You have managed to prove how two pics can be altered, yet the actual source of the alteration is nothing more than your word.



[edit on 8/27/2009 by Ethera]

Originally posted by edmond dantes

Hazel eyes can shift color from brown to green.

I just find it odd how Paul's eyes went from looking nearly always brown to looking quite green.

Yes. Hazel eyes can look green.

Yes. Hazel eyes can look green.

I have green eyes, & they have never once looked hazel. Ever. They can go blue or green, but never, ever hazel - or brown, for that matter. It doesn't matter what I'm wearing or the lighting or anything. They will never look hazel. So, I think we can assume someone w/ hazel eyes that were quite dark wouldn't suddenly have light green eyes.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Dakudo
The forensics DO NOT prove that at all.

Sure, they do. The experts said Paul would have had to have undergone a series of extensive & painful surgeries to account for the changes, & yet, the scarring wasn't there, & his singing career wasn't impacted. So, you do the math.

... There are impossible things and things that are possible but at the cost of operations long, painful and never perfect. Especially if done in the sixties. Now, careful examination of some pictures of McCartney before and after the 1966 autumn leaves, it must be said, in amazement: "First of all there is right upper canine," observes Carlesi Gabriella. "In the photos prior to 1966 is known as protruding relative to the line of teeth. It's the classic case of a tooth that lack of space it ends up misaligned, pushed out by the pressure of other teeth. It is curious that the same [canines] in the photos from 1967 forward, but without ever protruding apparent reason: the images show that the space would have to be aligned with the neighboring teeth. It's like if you wanted to recreate is a detail in a mouth where quell'anomalia would have never been able to express. " The real crux of the reasoning of dental identification suggested by Gabriella Carlesi covers the whole palate of McCartney that before 1966, appears close to the point of justifying various misalignments of the teeth, although in less obvious forms of upper right canine. After the publication of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, however, the palates of McCartney widens considerably, to the point that the front teeth does not rotate on its axis more as before. With the only on, than the usual canine. "A change of the shape of the palate, Carlesi concludes, 'in the Sixties was not impossible but would be very traumatic, the result of an actual intervention maxillo-facial. In practice McCartney should have been subjected to an operation that would involve the opening of the suture palate, broken bone and then a long prosthetic and orthodontic treatment. In other words, for a change so sensitive in the sixties to McCartney would be required not only a particularly painful and bloody, but also the use of a fixed orthodontic multiband then, for over a year. Which would not have been possible to hide and would be obvious repercussions on the performance of a vocal professional singer. "But above all," concludes Gabriella Carlesi, "reasons that Paul McCartney might have to undergo such an ordeal?"...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db

Here's a comp of the teeth from the article. You can see Paul's left canine is different from Faul's:

[edit on 27-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

It certainly can't be had both ways. Part of the claim is that the look-a-like had surgery to perfect his Paul look, and yet no surgery is evident--from the expert's assessment.