Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by berenike
The gist of it was that he couldn't imagine how a musician of Paul's calibre could allow the 'load of #e' that's been put out over the last 20 odd years in his name.

LOL! Yes, it makes me wince, too, that some of those awful songs have been blamed on Paul.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Dakudo

I think we've already addressed how easily it would be to fake freckles.

You've put forward a theory - with NO evidence to support it. Until you support your theory with some substantiation, we can regard your opinion as baseless.

The freckles you keep showing don't even match.

In your OPINION. And how do you know - have you any qualifications in facial analysis?

What scientific analysis have you done to those photos to come to that contention? Especially considering that the angles and facial positions are different in each photo.

I don't think a lay person's opinion - such as yours - is very credible regarding an absolute decision one way or the other.

Especially the very SAME lay person who was earlier claiming that Paul never even had freckles!

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Are those photos evidence that both Paul and 'Faul' had the same arrow sticking out of their noses?

Originally posted by Dakudo
You've put forward a theory - with NO evidence to support it.

People can look at the pictures & see that the freckles don't match. Also, I did cite to Spycraft about how disguises are made. I've also shown how photos have been doctored.

The freckles you keep showing don't even match.

In your OPINION. And how do you know - have you any qualifications in facial analysis?

Actually, it's not an "opinion," it's a fact that can be determined from looking at the pictures. It's not necessary to be an expert. You just need a decent eye for detail.

Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.

www.law.cornell.edu...

This falls easily within "rationally based on the perception of the witness."

What scientific analysis have you done to those photos to come to that contention? Especially considering that the angles and facial positions are different in each photo.

I haven't done any. As I said before, it's not necessary to be an expert.

I don't think a lay person's opinion - such as yours - is very credible regarding an absolute decision one way or the other.

If you were to look up the definition of "layperson," you would see it doesn't apply to a lawyer.

lay⋅per⋅son  [ley-pur-suhn] Show IPA
–noun
...
2. a person who is not a member of a given profession, as law or medicine.

dictionary.reference.com...

Did you notice "law" in the definition?

Originally posted by Dakudo

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Are those photos evidence that both Paul and 'Faul' had the same arrow sticking out of their noses?

Well, at least you noticed the arrows. Actually, they show the different profiles, pointing to the noses in particular.

Someone sent me a U2U earlier with this:

The two videos you posted here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Something I immediately noticed that I don't think anyone else has. Forget what he looks like (and, yeah, they look nothing alike...) - listen to his voice.

In the second video, he sounds *exactly* like the McCartney we know today.

In the first one? Oh dear.

Thanks for sending that great observation

reply to post by Dakudo


I'm just wondering why it is such a stretch to think that they could have been surgically placed? As we have seen there is evidence of agencies doing 'cosmetic' surgery such as this so why do you have such a problem accepting this as a possibility?

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob


Thanks for sending that great observation

"Great observation" lol.

Paul in 1968 .......www.youtube.com...

Paul in 1965..... www.youtube.com...



[edit on 27-8-2009 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by Dakudo


I don't think a lay person's opinion - such as yours - is very credible regarding an absolute decision one way or the other.

Especially the very SAME lay person who was earlier claiming that Paul never even had freckles!

Now you're just being a prick and ignoring the fact that Faulcon is more knowledgeable about the law than you (from present evidence).

So, Dakudo, why do you care so much about this that you are trying (not very successfully in my 'lay' opinion) to debunk this theory?

Those freckles, at even a glance, don't match...different angles and distances but hey, I'm just a lay person so I mustn't have any clue about how anything operates or must not be able to have any attention to detail (rofl, if only you knew, but I'm not going to tell you my profession because you'll just make snide comments about it and try to turn it into a weapon for your argument). the noses do look different at times and as for those comparisons you made, they look o.k. at a glance until you actually see that there are features which don't match: chin, eyes, ears, nose, mouth....very subtle changes, but the bridge of the nose and the top of the eye socket change markedly...or do you choose to ignore that too.

So, we have physical changes which is what people are focussing on, but there are also the backmasking and clues embedded in albums, subliminal recurring themes and cetera.

Where there' smoke there's fire (I thought you'd appreciate the tired old cliche).

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Dakudo
Anyone can do a google search. Your "evidence" is not credible.

My evidence only has to be relevant.

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.

I don't expect you to. But don't expect me to believe you.

Hey, you know what? You believe a guy who is taller, w/ different facial features, & different eye color is Paul McCartney

You just can't stick to FACTS, can you? That is NOT what I believe at all. Stop the disinfo and your misleading claims.

I do NOT believe a guy who is "taller, w/ different facial features, & different eye color" is Paul McCartney because I do NOT believe there are any of the differences YOU claim.

There are NO differences - that is why I believe it is the same man.

Stick to FACTS, not silly claims.

That your use of the laws of admissable evidence in relation to courts and jurys does not apply to PID.

LOL! I think you need to cite to some law to make that assertion, otherwise, it can be easily dismissed as a biased layperson's opinion.

The same can be said for your claims.

& many are seeing that Paul was replaced.

How many, exactly? And what is your source? Or is this another one of your statements plucked from thin air with no substantiation?

Go back & read the thread. There are a lot of people seeing the difference.

NO - YOU made the claim! I'm just asking for evidence - it's up to YOU to support your claim if you wish it to be taken seriously. Since you haven't supported this claim - it's not particularly credible - sorry.

Credible evidence forms part of the weight of evidence used in a court of law to decide a case! Therefore the CREDIBILITY of evidence is evaluated and decided upon.

I'm sorry, but the legal standard is not "credible evidence." It is "relevant evidence." Relevant evidence is admissible...

Are you for real? Are you trying to have us believe that the courts do not deliberate on whether evidence is credible or not as regards weight of evidence????

If so, kindly provide proof. In the meantime, here's the quote again:

Term: Weight Of The Evidence
Definition: The balance of the greater amount of CREDIBLE evidence.
en.mimi.hu...

My point relating to credible evidence, therefore, still stands.

lol - "credible evidence" is not the legal standard for admissibility.

Your the one talking about admissibility - not me!

Just because it's admissable, doesn't mean it's credible when examined. That's the point I made.

Not unless you have an expert witness to support your photo evidence.

I've already shown that's not necessary

No you haven't.

Generally speaking, the law of evidence in both civil and criminal cases confines the testimony of witnesses to statements of concrete facts within their own observation, knowledge, and recollection.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Who is going to testify that your photos are NOT Paul McCartney??? Your LAY opinion is not acceptable.

I'm not a layperson

So you are a forensic photo expert, are you?

I don't think so!

Good grief.

& I've shown that they'd be admissible by actually citing to LAW.

They are NOT acceptable unless accompanied by expert testimony!

Expert witnesses are persons who are qualified, either by actual experience or by careful study, to form definite opinions with respect to a division of science, a branch of art, or a department of trade.

The law deems persons having no such experience or training to be incapable of forming accurate opinions or drawing correct conclusions.

Thus, if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

No judge in the world would accept a bunch of photos claimed by a lay person to be different people!

Faul has 5 reckles next on his nose that were removed in colorized SFF/Fool on the Hill close-ups:









Paul had freckles, but they weren't exactly the same.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Dakudo
You've put forward a theory - with NO evidence to support it.

People can look at the pictures & see that the freckles don't match. Also, I did cite to Spycraft about how disguises are made. I've also shown how photos have been doctored.

And that is supposed to show that 'Faul' had a freckle transplant or that these particular photos were doctored?

Of course it doesn't! Refering to completely different cases is irrelevant! It doesn't provide any credible evidence that the same thing occurs with these particular photos of Paul with freckles does it?

If you are claiming the freckles have been transplanted or the photos have been doctored then provide specific evidence!

The freckles you keep showing don't even match.

In your OPINION. And how do you know - have you any qualifications in facial analysis?

Actually, it's not an "opinion," it's a fact that can be determined from looking at the pictures.

Gimme a break!

Going by that perverted logic, this SAME man has a different shaped nose!



Oh dear, faulcon!

It's not necessary to be an expert. You just need a decent eye for detail.

You have proven you don't have an eye for detail when you claimed Paul never had freckles.

If you were to look up the definition of "layperson," you would see it doesn't apply to a lawyer.

It depends on the subject! *SIGH*

By definition, a lay witness is any witness who is not qualified to testify as an expert on a particular subject.

Expert witnesses are persons who are qualified, either by actual experience or by careful study, to form definite opinions with respect to a division of science, a branch of art, or a department of trade. The law deems persons having no such experience or training to be incapable of forming accurate opinions or drawing correct conclusions.
law.jrank.org...

Since when was a lawyer qualified to give opinions on forensic science????

Originally posted by aorAki
reply to post by Dakudo

 

I'm just wondering why it is such a stretch to think that they could have been surgically placed?

Because I have seen no credible evidence to support such a proposition. Just wild theories and claims with no substantiation and ridiculous summations to try and support it.

Plus, I can look at the photos and see it's the same person.

Originally posted by Dakudo
You just can't stick to FACTS, can you?

All of the photos I've presented have been evidence of objective facts: different eye color, different facial features, different height, etc. I've also presented experts' conclusions with respect to differences in facial features using forensic science.

Stop the disinfo and your misleading claims.

Ditto

I do NOT believe a guy who is "taller, w/ different facial features, & different eye color" is Paul McCartney because I do NOT believe there are any of the differences YOU claim.

There is evidence of different colored eyes, different heights, & differences in facial features. Some people do not dismiss experts' factual conclusions quite so easily.

There are NO differences - that is why I believe it is the same man.

There are obviously differences - people have noticed them. If there were no differences, this thread wouldn't even exist.

Stick to FACTS, not silly claims.

My claims are based on facts.

I'm just asking for evidence - it's up to YOU to support your claim if you wish it to be taken seriously. Since you haven't supported this claim - it's not particularly credible - sorry.

I think you should probably go back & review the 80+ pages of this thread w/ numerous photo comps, forensic evidence, sonagrams, hand-writing, etc.

Are you trying to have us believe that the courts do not deliberate on whether evidence is credible or not as regards weight of evidence????

It's for the finder of fact (usually jury, but sometimes judge) to determine credibility of evidence AFTER it's been admitted. If it's relevant, it's presumed admissible.

If so, kindly provide proof.

I've cited to the law on that

Just because it's admissable, doesn't mean it's credible when examined.

In your opinion. Other people find forensic science, photos, signatures, & voiceprints to be quite credible.

Not unless you have an expert witness to support your photo evidence.

I've already shown that's not necessary

No you haven't.
Yes, I did that when I cited to the FRE:

Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.

Rule 702. Testimony by Experts

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

www.law.cornell.edu...

You don't necessarily need "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" knowledge to see that the faces don't match up on photos - that is within the "perception of the witness." However, an expert would be necessary to present the findings using craniometry, etc, to the factfinder.

Who is going to testify that your photos are NOT Paul McCartney??? Your LAY opinion is not acceptable.

The forensics experts who did a biometrical analysis on the 2 men would be an example.

I'm not a layperson, as I've tried to explain to you before.

& I've shown that they'd be admissible by actually citing to LAW.

They are NOT acceptable unless accompanied by expert testimony!

I have shown that this is not true using FRE. Relevant evidence is presumed admissible:

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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

Rule 903. Subscribing Witness' Testimony Unnecessary

The testimony of a subscribing witness is not necessary to authenticate a writing unless required by the laws of the jurisdiction whose laws govern the validity of the writing.

www.law.cornell.edu...

No judge in the world would accept a bunch of photos claimed by a lay person to be different people!

Maybe I should remind you that photographs are used to establish identity. That's why they're on passports & other forms of identification, capiche?

[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).

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Faul has 5 reckles next on his nose that were removed in colorized SFF/Fool on the Hill close-ups:

They weren't "removed". The different film process made the detail less.

Good grief!

And why would they bother to remove the freckles anyway? They didn't in the black and white film!

Once again, your claim makes no sense at all.

Paul had freckles

"Paul didn't have freckles, er yes he did..."

You have zero credibility on this now after completely contradicting yourself.

but they weren't exactly the same.

See above.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

No judge in the world would accept a bunch of photos claimed by a lay person to be different people!

Maybe I should remind you that photographs are used to establish identity. That's why they're on passports & other forms of identification, capiche?

Maybe I should remind YOU that Paul STILL uses his passport photo to establish his identity as PAUL McCARTNEY.

Capiche?

Originally posted by Dakudo

And that is supposed to show that 'Faul' had a freckle transplant or that these particular photos were doctored?

It shows that the freckles don't match.

Since when was a lawyer qualified to give opinions on forensic science????

Since when is a layperson qualified to give their opinion on forensic science? You people w/ no scientific background keep trying to claim that he forensics experts findings have been "debnked." Based on what? Have you done a biometrical analysis? Do you have a background in craniometry? Sorry, but I find the experts' opinions much more credible than some guy's opinion - esp one who is working really, really hard to try to debunk a hoax. lol

Originally posted by Dakudo
Because I have seen no credible evidence to support such a proposition. Just wild theories and claims with no substantiation and ridiculous summations to try and support it.

Photos, forensic findings, signatures, sonagrams, etc, have all been put forward to support PID. It is not a "wild theory" that Paul's facial features changed when forensic experts saying that his features morphed - & that surgery can't account for the changes.

Plus, I can look at pictures & see they're not the same person.

Originally posted by Dakudo
Maybe I should remind YOU that Paul STILL uses his passport photo to establish his identity as PAUL McCARTNEY.

B/c if they were going to install Faul as "Paul McCartney," they wouldn't have bothered to change the passport photo? lol