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.

 

Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

page: 53
33
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SednaSon
Nose, eyes and jawline are all different.


In your opinion (and perhaps faulcon's) only.


Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
What is up w/ this sideburn?




Is that a rhetorical question? Is there any other answer other than
nothing / nothing in particular ?

Stop clutching at straws faulcon in your attempt to keep this futile theory
going.




posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I just think it's a weird sideburn. Not as weird as the ears, noses, eyes or height difference, but just another kind of odd thing.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Stop clutching at straws faulcon in your attempt to keep this futile theory
going.


I don't think someone who has hard science to back up their position can be considered "clutching at straws."

only1rad.proboards.com...



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

I don't think someone who has hard science to back up their position can be considered "clutching at straws."



''Hard science''



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
The scientists from the WIRED article [at only1rad.proboards.com...] compared Paul/Faul ear comps:



And said (loosely translated)


You can see the different conformation of piercing A (billobato before the 1966) the different performance of ellce and the different amplezza of antelice and of the valley. Do not coincide even the proportions between the various points Litania-from antelice and incisura pretagica (or the depression between Piercing and antitrago).


I wonder what they would have said if they'd compared Paul's ear to Faul's fake ones:







Do you really need to measure them to tell they're not the same? lol



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


Hi Faulcon, it is true that Paul never sang "The Night Before" in his solo career, but we can say also that George never sang "I Need You", John never sang "You can't do that" after the Beatles' years... so how can we assume Paul (or Faul) would have not been able to maintain his vocal range basing on this fact?
I compared Paul's performances in "Long Tall Sally" (early Sixties) and "Helter Skelter" (1968), the voice is powerful and surely from the same guy.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by magnolia_xx
reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
 


Hi Faulcon, it is true that Paul never sang "The Night Before" in his solo career, but we can say also that George never sang "I Need You", John never sang "You can't do that" after the Beatles' years... so how can we assume Paul (or Faul) would have not been able to maintain his vocal range basing on this fact?
I compared Paul's performances in "Long Tall Sally" (early Sixties) and "Helter Skelter" (1968), the voice is powerful and surely from the same guy.


I think you are very right, magnolia.

Also see this video:



How is that not hte same guy?



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Great video, Diabolo!
I also would like to point out that his vocal performances are the same in many other songs, like "Here, there and everywhere" (1966) and "I will" (1968), or "Blackbird" (1968) and "Things we said today" (1964).
His voice has a stunning range, and it cannot be mistaken.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by diabolo1
 


Could you confirm what year the black and white video was taken used to compare these?

To pm - if you are so adamant the Italian scientists do not have any value, then please do some research on them to prove them otherwise - waving your hands and uttering a few words does not a 'counter' measure make - it's no better than a "yes" "no" "yes" "no" argument from two year olds.

You keep saying these things, posts and support documents that PID are given and you just brush it aside like everything - and again - without answering any questions asked of YOU a few times now.

Works both ways - your opinion doesn't cut it on its own.... where's YOUR proof otherwise? If you have no proof otherwise, why keep checking in to this post and keeping it alive and well?!?
Because without you, it just may not keep going...
You gotta love that irony!



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Hi Kshaund, the b&w video is from 1964



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by magnolia_xx
 


Thanks - but can you show its source to prove it was pre 66?



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   


Top from


Bottom from Mal Evans' videos of "Paul."


[edit on 26-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund
To pm - if you are so adamant the Italian scientists do not have any value, then please do some research on them to prove them otherwise...

Yes... what exactly is not credible about forensic science? Just b/c it doesn't confirm one's preconceived notions it's somehow not credible? I don't expect PIA'ers to conduct & publish their own biometrical analysis, but they could use facial recognition software, such as at myheritage.com, & see if they can get better results than 65-80% match for Paul & "Paul."

[edit on 26-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
My 2p worth....

I'm from Liverpool myself. My friends mother is the same age as Paul, used to live in the same area as Paul, indeed used to get their morning papers from Paul as he did a paper round, as kids do. Also, as you can imagine, she was (still is, really) a massive Beatles fan (as is my own mother, being one of the original Cavern Dwellers herself).

As you can imagine, both of them are quite familiar with members of the Beatles, although to be fair my Mam preferred George...

Anyway, let's get to the point.

I've mentioned all this "Paul is dead" malarkey to both of them a few times in the past, and both of them reckon it is a load of b***s. "People would have noticed. We would have noticed." and so on.

So, that's my take on things. 2 people, both reliable observant peeps with reliable anecdotal evidence to say it's a load of arse. No offence, but I think I'll be sitting on their side of the fence for now.

Cheers!



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Yes... what exactly is not credible about forensic science? Just b/c it doesn't confirm one's preconceived notions it's somehow not credible? I don't expect PIA'ers to conduct & publish their own biometrical analysis, but they could use facial recognition software, such as at myheritage.com, & see if they can get better results than 65-80% match for Paul & "Paul."


I doubt the software on that site is very accurate.


Face recognition is not perfect and struggles to perform under certain conditions. Ralph Gross, a researcher at the Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute, describes one obstacle related to the viewing angle of the face: "Face recognition has been getting pretty good at full frontal faces and 20 degrees off, but as soon as you go towards profile, there've been problems."[6]

Other conditions where face recognition does not work well include poor lighting, sunglasses, long hair, or other objects partially covering the subject’s face, and low resolution images.[2]

Another serious drawback is that many systems are less effective if facial expressions vary. Even a big smile can render in the system less effectively. For instance, Canada now disallows a variety of standard facial expressions in passport photos. Most notably one is not allowed to smile very much.

en.wikipedia.org...

So unless you have two photographs with the same facial expression, the same good lighting, not low resolution (rules out anything you find on the net, or magazine pics, sry), and other points noted above, then your facial recognition is neither accurate, nor scientific.

The 65 to 80% you got is about all you'll get, depending on the source of the comparisons.

So what now? Back to his eye colour?



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope


So unless you have two photographs with the same facial expression, the same good lighting, not low resolution (rules out anything you find on the net, or magazine pics, sry), and other points noted above, then your facial recognition is neither accurate, nor scientific.

The 65 to 80% you got is about all you'll get, depending on the source of the comparisons.

So what now? Back to his eye colour?


Unfortunately (lol) I tend to agree with this. However, this doesn't appear to apply to those pesky Italians as one is a specialist forensic expert.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Wikipedia is not a credible source but I expect you and the rest of the internet world would disagree with me on that point - However, you do not know what equipment they had, what equipment is available, etc. And their conclusions were less certain for Paul McCartney than they were for other 'control' subjects. I assure you there is technology that will give 100% face recognition, but we don't get to use it, only 'they' do.

reply to post by Wally Hope
 



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Hi there - thanks for sharing that - I'd be interested to know if they've actually seen/talked with Paul since 1966 themselves?

Also people have/did notice he changed (perhaps) as this whole thread attests to - the whole rumor made sure a lot of people started noticing as it's alive and well today, 45 years later.

reply to post by Lozzo
 



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lozzo
So, that's my take on things. 2 people, both reliable observant peeps with reliable anecdotal evidence to say it's a load of arse. No offence, but I think I'll be sitting on their side of the fence for now.


I find it hard to believe that someone who knew Paul wouldn't have noticed that he grew 2 inches, changed eye color, rearranged his facial features, changed his personality, & musical style. I guess they didn't know him very wel - if they really knew him at all. Sorry, but people on the internet can claim anything. I just don't find it particularly credible. No offense.

I think I'll be sitting on the side of forensic science on this one.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by kshaund
 



Hi!

It's my friends mother who was more familiar with Paul, with her being from the same area and of a similar age (I think she is actually 2 or 3 years younger than him, and her older sister the same age) who'll be the one to ask. But, as she's said before, they all knew each other as kids, as before he used to deliver the papers in the area, mutual friends, and with all that she was quite familiar with his looks, voice and mannerisms whilst growing up.

Saying this, if I look at photos of myself when I was 15 compared to how I am now approaching 40 there's quite a few differences, in particular pale blue/grey instead of a deeper blue as the were when I was younger and my schozz has certainly filled out a bit. I've never actually tried to compare my ears too, but I'll be doing so when I get a chance.



Anyway, it's a fascinating theory that, like Paul himself, refuses to die! I really must get around to asking them about it all again.




top topics



 
33
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join