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: 60
33
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Creating the illusion: Paul in 1964 on left. Both pics with the yellow background are from Sgt. Pepper (1967).





posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Not always, he wasn't.




Ringo is towards the front of the shot and Paul is in the back. Objects which are further away appear smaller. If the two look to be the same height in the photo, and one of them is further back than the other, then the person in the back is actually taller than the person in the front.



Pauls feet are in front of Ringos, his shoulders are behind him, but his head is out in front of him. The height comparison is the result of their posture, stance, and contrast in the photo.



Look at Ringo's feet compared to Paul's. Ringo is closer to the camera than Paul.

Notice how much taller Paul is compared to John. Now look at the first photo again and compare the height of John and Ringo, with John's knees being more flexed than Ringo's.



If John > Ringo and Paul > John then.... Paul ___ Ringo



Paul is again behind Ringo and is lowering his left shoulder towards the camera.

Then you get this big height difference:



Oh my God! Paul is not only taller than Ringo, but he's standing in front of him this time! The height difference is magnified even more!

This is what happens when you search for information to conform to your theory. You found pictures that presented the illusion of them being the same height, and then found a picture with the reverse of the illusion to prove your point.

Learn about perspective.



Unless you are a forensic scientist & you've done a biometrical analysis, I don't think you can claim that they're "identical." The most you can say is that they appear identical in your opinion, which is that of a layman, not an expert.


Good. It's nice to see you admit that your analysis is that of a layman, because you haven't done any forensic science or biometrical procedures.



I think you very conveniently forget that it's already been proven that the facial features don't match up by forensic science. But anyway, plastic surgery was no doubt used to improve the double's likeness. I've already shown how plastic surgery has been used since the 1940's for that purpose.


1. You have not proven this. You said the quoted poster had no biometric data to prove it, but if you truly had the data to prove your own case you wouldn't need to make that point. You'd already have the info knowing that it is true, why would you even suggest that someone else could perform the same procedure and come to a different conclusion? You wouldn't if you had proven it, you would know exactly what the data meant and have no doubt in your mind of it's validity which leaves no room open for others to find another conclusion. Peer review, it has a purpose.

2. Beyond your analysis of pictures, you have no evidence to state that there is "no doubt" your Faul is the result of plastic surgery. You have no doctors statements, medical records, or any shred of tangible proof of this. That is not proving beyond a doubt, that is merely your belief and opinion which is not fact.

3. The fact that plastic surgery has been used to alter appearance has no relevant meaning to this theory. It's like charging me with murder for having rat poison because it has been shown that rat poison has been used in the past for murder. That's it, there wouldn't even need to be a dead body. Just the fact that I have it would mean I murdered someone. That is the logic you applied, just because it's used for a purpose doesn't mean it was used in this one. That is merely stating the obvious. Planes are used to fly. Cars are a method of transport.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Parabol
 


Hi Parabol, my congrats for your perfect and logical explanations.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by magnolia_xx
 


Thank you for your kind comment. You have inspired me to logically address some of the recent arguments over eye color and facial features. I will be back in a bit with some research.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by seaofgreen
 


I had a few thoughts to add to seaofgreen's information. I just tried to break it down as simple as possible.

Let's start with eye color. Is it brown or green? First a bit about the colors themselves, independent of Paul. We'll start by looking at a combination of the two colors. If they both appear to be present then let us investigate this. The simplest question to ask is can an eye appear to be brown sometimes, and green others. This would present the simplest solution because what we believe to see and reality would be the same thing.

As seaofgreen's post mentioned, the scattering of light has a large effect on the visible color plus a partial illusion caused by a darker border, we could say that the lighting present when the picture was taken may have an effect on the color perceived through the camera. Each light source has it's own particular mixture of wavelengths, which is why some bulbs appear to give off yellow light and some white, it's a matter of distribution. So varying wavelengths can produce different colors because of the proportion of the wavelengths to reach our eyes. I have hazel eyes myself and have been told they look more green or more gold at various points in my life. I don't keep up with it myself, but I've been told so enough times to believe that my eyes are capable of being perceived as brown, green, or gold. Remember, objects don't possess color, what we see is what is reflected. The air or type of light can alter the reflections without any property of the object changing. It's merely a conscious perception.

The simplest solution to the issue of his eye color is that all of the photos are genuine in this regard, because his eyes are capable of being perceived as brown or green (because he's a human).

To say that this is supporting evidence for fraud has no merit because the only information to back it up is just as shaky and complicated as the eye issue. We know for a fact, through numerous studies and the laws of physics, that people are capable of having eyes which appear to be different colors in different environments. What method is there of proving that the eyes are the result of different people when we know that to be true?

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Parabol]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Parabol
reply to post by seaofgreen
 


I had a few thoughts to add to seaofgreen's information. I just tried to break it down as simple as possible.

Let's start with eye color. Is it brown or green? First a bit about the colors themselves, independent of Paul. We'll start by looking at a combination of the two colors. If they both appear to be present then let us investigate this. The simplest question to ask is can an eye appear to be brown sometimes, and green others. This would present the simplest solution because what we believe to see and reality would be the same thing.

As seaofgreen's post mentioned, the scattering of light has a large effect on the visible color plus a partial illusion caused by a darker border, we could say that the lighting present when the picture was taken may have an effect on the color perceived through the camera. Each light source has it's own particular mixture of wavelengths, which is why some bulbs appear to give off yellow light and some white, it's a matter of distribution. So varying wavelengths can produce different colors because of the proportion of the wavelengths to reach our eyes. I have hazel eyes myself and have been told they look more green or more gold at various points in my life. I don't keep up with it myself, but I've been told so enough times to believe that my eyes are capable of being perceived as brown, green, or gold. Remember, objects don't possess color, what we see is what is reflected. The air or type of light can alter the reflections without any property of the object changing. It's merely a conscious perception.

The simplest solution to the issue of his eye color is that all of the photos are genuine in this regard, because his eyes are capable of being perceived as brown or green (because he's a human).

To say that this is supporting evidence for fraud has no merit because the only information to back it up is just as shaky and complicated as the eye issue. We know for a fact, through numerous studies and the laws of physics, that people are capable of having eyes which appear to be different colors in different environments. What method is there of proving that the eyes are the result of different people when we know that to be true?

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Parabol]


The thing is, its all meaningless. We can assertions about paul all day long, and how his eye color somehow changes with mood/lighting/camera man haveing a bad day. Obviously looking at this case, to debunk it, would not be looking at paul/faul and argueing BS all day long. It would be to start showing off Comparisons of others down the line showing how exactly this happens commonly.

This is why I orignaly picked ringo.. Blue eyes, You can even see his eyes color tint through shades in photos that i had posted here before. So theoretically if Ringos eye's are dark in the same photo, That means the camera either had poor lightening, or overtime the photo that we are "seeing" has had contrast problems and has been rerendered somehow to get it back to being a viewable photo.

Ringo though wears lots of shades, its a pain, so comparison photo's with paul/faul is going to be a dead end. But nonetheless theres half a billion more people in the world. and Paul was not the only star of attraction in the entire period time frame to go with. People don't buy camera's for unique individuals none the less.

And beyond popular belief, if we want to have "Hazel" in its own little box world of rendering green on demand, there obviously would be thousands of pictures by individuals with this ability, and not restricted to some sight, but easily found. Hazel would not be the only eye color that would have this tendancy as well.

The only clear path to debunking this thing, is by blatently showing off other people that have had these same drastic changes, that people just did not notice. Its not like we are claiming faul is not faul, and the physical body and eye change are hugely apparant. between faul back then and to now, however there is a backlash of belief on a specific set of changes in a specific time frame, in which needs an example comparison to even to begin to properly debat.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Here is a quick analysis and overlay of two photos magnolia posted earlier. Very basic, not scientific, but I'll start counting pixels and estimating ratios if I have to.

The angle of the pic is not the same but I think it shows very similar features and proportions. I'll try to find a better match as far as perspective goes.




[edit on 3-8-2009 by Parabol]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
This is what happens when you search for information to conform to your theory. You found pictures that presented the illusion of them being the same height, and then found a picture with the reverse of the illusion to prove your point.

My issue here is, this is what exactly you did to. out of the thousands of paul/faul height comparison photos, there is always new ones to come in to fight a specific perception.

My question is: Out of all the height variations shown off in all the photos, how does one even begin to comprehend a direct height to mere randomness to prove one way or another ?

Answer: You don't the only thing you can do is lean it towards a given perception and clip the ones you like and make a dialogue to suit them.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Parabol
Here is a quick analysis and overlay of two photos magnolia posted earlier. Very basic, not scientific, but I'll start counting pixels and estimating ratios if I have to.

The angle of the pic is not the same but I think it shows very similar features and proportions. I'll try to find a better match as far as perspective goes.




[edit on 3-8-2009 by Parabol]


Now you just have about a thousand more to go, i can patiently await this


I see a few inconsitancies on it, but can await others to verify.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Bldrvgr]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bldrvgr
This is what happens when you search for information to conform to your theory. You found pictures that presented the illusion of them being the same height, and then found a picture with the reverse of the illusion to prove your point.

My issue here is, this is what exactly you did to. out of the thousands of paul/faul height comparison photos, there is always new ones to come in to fight a specific perception.


I used the photos that he posted on the previous page, I did not choose these. He selected them for use as evidence of his theory. I merely countered his points.

Though I will look for other examples, the types I accused him of most likely passing over.



My question is: Out of all the height variations shown off in all the photos, how does one even begin to comprehend a direct height to mere randomness to prove one way or another ?


Math and statistical analysis. Find pictures with objects of a known height in the background to form a scale which can be used to determine the heights of the men. Do this for many pictures, see if the data trends towards specific heights for each. Does this match the reported measurements of the Beatles? Also, the laws of perspective are quite clear and constant. It's difficult to imagine anyone looking at those photos could come to the conclusion that Paul and Ringo are approximately the same height.



Answer: You don't the only thing you can do is lean it towards a given perception and clip the ones you like and make a dialogue to suit them.


While I don't believe the Faul theory to be true, my feelings on the subject have no bearing on the evidence presented in the photos. All I did was determine the distance from the lens by their position in the photo and compare it to the apparent height of each man. That's not opinion, that's looking at the picture and describing exactly what it is.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bldrvgr
Now you just have about a thousand more to go, i can patiently await this


I see a few inconsitancies on it, but can await others to verify.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by Bldrvgr]


The problem is, you weigh a small inconsistency, which can be due to many variables like weight, height of camera relative to Paul, distance, lighting, and overlook the obvious consistencies.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
That would be a possibility, if the replacement Paul wasn't different from Paul in so many ways.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Mommybird
 


Ok, let's start with that. If we keep this debate on the most simple terms it will make it easier on both sides. How about we concisely name all of the inconsistencies. This way we know exactly what it is we are debating.

1. Eye color
2. Height
3. Chin
4. Earlobe

I know there are a bunch more, these were the first that came to mind.

Also, what is the criteria for proof? What evidence in any of these cases would be considered an acceptable explanation that does not involve the replacement of Paul by Faul?



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bldrvgr
My issue here is, this is what exactly you did to. out of the thousands of paul/faul height comparison photos, there is always new ones to come in to fight a specific perception.

My question is: Out of all the height variations shown off in all the photos, how does one even begin to comprehend a direct height to mere randomness to prove one way or another ?


Here are some more pics for your data collection on Paul's height versus Ringo's.










Recent photo




Show me a photo where Ringo is the same height or taller than Paul that can't be attributable to perspective. The above are obvious examples of Paul being taller.

Or what about this one? Pretty famous photo, looks like Paul is slightly behind Ringo but only slightly taller. Now check out their feet, Paul isn't wearing any shoes...




[edit on 3-8-2009 by Parabol]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Parabol

I used the photos that he posted on the previous page, I did not choose these. He selected them for use as evidence of his theory. I merely countered his points. Though I will look for other examples, the types I accused him of most likely passing over.

Fair enough, however his discussion will not be in part of mine. and this more of a directed argument rather then an overall.

Math and statistical analysis. Find pictures with objects of a known height in the background to form a scale which can be used to determine the heights of the men. Do this for many pictures, see if the data trends towards specific heights for each. Does this match the reported measurements of the Beatles? Also, the laws of perspective are quite clear and constant. It's difficult to imagine anyone looking at those photos could come to the conclusion that Paul and Ringo are approximately the same height.

This can be done, however no one has even attempted to do this, nor has shown any fact that if said would shown results.. Aka Took another Person in comparison of well known height, and well known height variations photos to conclude this theory could possibily work. Again there needs to be solid examples and that not just done up on paul/faul theories.

While I don't believe the Faul theory to be true, my feelings on the subject have no bearing on the evidence presented in the photos. All I did was determine the distance from the lens by their position in the photo and compare it to the apparent height of each man. That's not opinion, that's looking at the picture and describing exactly what it is.

Considering this was more of a directed quote from another person, Then is a fine argument, I have have seen rediculouse arguments though with markers in the past that makes me skeptical on validity of claims being not being percieved as leaning towards an individual stance. aka the comparison cannot be properly reproduced so we will just roll and hope people do not notice ~

The problem is, you weigh a small inconsistency, which can be due to many variables like weight, height of camera relative to Paul, distance, lighting, and overlook the obvious consistencies.

also Age, stress, conditional change and a multitude of things, however this does not validate one way or the other, which is why i treat them as all futile in the end. Unless again we start takeing several other people in the mix and showing Positives. I've seen to much the argument of "well paul aged increadably that year" or "no Paul didn't change at all here is his mapping" Not only that, his mapping is always "select" and not in broad scale. again they lean towards "Perception" angle, This was one of them, wether intentional or not, it is.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bldrvgr
The only clear path to debunking this thing, is by blatently showing off other people that have had these same drastic changes, that people just did not notice. Its not like we are claiming faul is not faul, and the physical body and eye change are hugely apparant. between faul back then and to now...

I think the only way to debunk PID is to somehow debunk the biometrical analysis done by forensic scientists proving Paul had been replaced b/c his facial features didn't match pre & post 1966. Until the PIA'ers can refute the science, they've got nothing. Maybe they believe the "cute Beatle" went thru a series of extensive & painful surgeries to transform his face for no apparent reason - sans the requisite scars, of course - but that's too much of a stretch for me. Everything added together leads to the unfortunate & inevitable conclusion that Paul was replaced.





[edit on 3-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Parabol should use pictures where half of Faul's face isn't covered by a beard.



You know why I left Ringo in this pic? I thought for sure no one would believe the guy in the orange jacket was supposed to be Paul. lol




[edit on 3-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Bldrvgr
The only clear path to debunking this thing, is by blatently showing off other people that have had these same drastic changes, that people just did not notice. Its not like we are claiming faul is not faul, and the physical body and eye change are hugely apparant. between faul back then and to now...

I think the only way to debunk PID is to somehow debunk the biometrical analysis done by forensic scientists proving Paul had been replaced b/c his facial features didn't match pre & post 1966. Until the PIA'ers can refute the science, they've got nothing. Maybe they believe the "cute Beatle" went thru a series of extensive & painful surgeries to transform his face for no apparent reason - sans the requisite scars, of course - but that's too much of a stretch for me. Everything added together leads to the unfortunate conclusion that Paul was replaced.



I disagree, and Here is why.

There is to much skeptisim in the "Beatles" crew to ever come to a solid conclusion head on. No matter what you do, there will always be the "that is paul in there, that is faul in there" Etc on down the line.

Scans, Forensics is not going to solve this issue, for in itself people are still going to battle the same redunant cases. again and again. Hell i watch a comercial on such blatant exploit of this. Its basis was "one forensics team said a lady and her husband went out boating and the boat tipped over she drowned and there is scan's/forensics saying this case" / "one forensics team said a lady and her husband went out boating and her husband hit her over on the back of the skull with the ore and she drowned and there is scan's/forensics saying this case" its wtf..

If you start to take this out of the "beatles" context wrapping and show off other people who with out a doubt are not seen as being "swtiched" which gives off fact based examples to the claims. Things will start coming into view more. People will not inherently "see" other people as being two individuals.

Or we might "see" more then intended. aka if sylvie vixan gets mixed up in it.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bldrvgr

Scans, Forensics is not going to solve this issue, for in itself people are still going to battle the same redunant cases. again and again. Hell i watch a comercial on such blatant exploit of this. Its basis was "one forensics team said a lady and her husband went out boating and the boat tipped over she drowned and there is scan's/forensics saying this case" / "one forensics team said a lady and her husband went out boating and her husband hit her over on the back of the skull with the ore and she drowned and there is scan's/forensics saying this case" its wtf..

Yes, but in that case, it was forensics experts battling it out, each one presenting their conclusions done after their forensic analysis. In this case, forensics experts have concluded PWR, & there are no other forensics experts refuting their findings. There are only lay people saying, oh they look the same. So, until the PIA'ers have some sort of forensic study backing them up, they are in a very weak position. Just imagine what a judge or jury would think - team of experts presenting the results of a biometrical analysis vs. Joe Blow giving his layman's opinion. Yeah..



If you start to take this out of the "beatles" context wrapping and show off other people who with out a doubt are not seen as being "swtiched" which gives off fact based examples to the claims. Things will start coming into view more. People will not inherently "see" other people as being two individuals.

Would you explain what you mean by this a little more? Thanks.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
Here was something that never sat right w/ me. In the song, "A Day in the Life," there is a bit w/ Paul singing. George Martin said Paul has this bit & just stuck it in the song b/c he couldn't (?) develop it into a song, so they didn't know what else to do w/ it. Really? Does that sound right to people? Prolific, talented song-writer Paul who wrote masterpieces like "Yesterday," "Eleanor Rigby," "For No One," etc, couldn't develop that bit into a song? I'm thinking they just had a snippet from Paul that they wanted to use, so incorporated it into a song. Same goes for "Her Majesty," & probably the bit at the end of "Cry Baby Cry."


This is ridiculous, I take it that you are not a songwriter? That type of writing is common practice and the Beatles did it a lot. When you sit down to write it's rare to just write a whole song, verses, chorus, bridge, and other movements. What happens is you write a bunch of song fragments and then work on assembling them. If you know how to change keys well you can come up with some interesting, and unexpected moments and chords. This is one of the songwriting hallmarks of the Beatles.

Most bands do not employ two songwriters like the Beatles did. This worked to their advantage because they could put together a great song like "We Can Work it Out", where Paul had the verse idea and John wrote the bridge. They just pieced their fragments together. "Happiness is a Warm Gun" is a combination of four song fragments. Songs like "Penny Lane" and "Strawberry Fields" were primarily written by one or the other, and it shows. The rest of their catalogue (not including Harrison and Starr's contributions of course) is filled with songs built like patchwork.

To address the other comments, George Martin arranged the strings to "Eleanor Rigby" as well as instructed the players to bow very close to the handle and much closer to the mic than normally done. It's as much Martin's song as it is Paul's.

"Her Majesty" was originally supposed to be a part of the Abbey Road medley, which in my opinion, the greatest patchwork songwriting they did. It was slated to start after "Polythene Pam", which is why there is a big chord hit at the beginning of it. They removed it from the medley but an engineer, who had been told never to erase or cut tape kept it tacked on the end. The Beatles heard the first mix and caught the surprise, they ended up liking it so they kept it in.

Paul's style is evident throughout their career. I know how to play a ton of Beatles song on guitar and piano. There's never a point where the quality or ability drops off. Both Lennon and McCartney expanded their writing in unique ways, developing distinct styles. There is never a point where the quality or tone of the vocal changes enough to speculate it's an entirely different person. There is no sound musical evidence to back the existence of Faul up. All I've seen is guessing and assumptions on the part of people who don't write music or study the structure of their songwriting. That's not an attack, just a statement of fact. If you can't perceive the music or progression thereof through the eyes of a songwriter then you can't see the complete picture. Just like I couldn't see the picture Falcon sees when he does his lawyer stuff.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join