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: 86
33
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
I have the Lewison book you refer to (Beatles Recording Sessions) and it is very thorough and well documented. However, when a state sponsored intel coverup is afoot, reels can be re-labelled to fit the cover story.

Not saying I'm convinced some Pepper songs were recorded by Original Paul before August 1966 but it is entirely possible.

Lewison's book could be inaccurate. I know that's blasphemy but with an intel coverup, you cannot believe everything you read as gospel fact. The Warren Commission put out a whole multi-volume series of "factual" books that were a mass of falsehoods and red herrings.

You've got to take all the books about The Beatles' history with a bit of skepticism and not simply presume they are 100% factual, even the ones that date the sessions using labels and rundown sheets in the reel cans. I know Lewison is considered a top expert but he was not there during any of the sessions.




posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Yes, of course no source can be actually considered 100% accurate, but what is reasonably more accurate? A reference book by Mark Lewisohn with all data from recording sessions, or a few mere fantasies and speculations about which songs could have been recorded first?
Besides, why would anyone try to falsify the date of recording of those 3 songs in particular?
Why not other songs? Maybe "Oh Darling!" (1969) o "Helter Skelter" (1968) could have been recorded in 1964, as the vocal performance is identical to "Long Tall Sally", just for example...

But the truth is that the vocal performances are identical because they were sung by the same guy: Paul McCartney.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I've read several pages of this thread, but not all of it. I've looked at photos, and video's and I can't tell much difference in any of them. But with all the detective work that's gone on in this thread, I read something that might easily (or not) be checked and may help to debunk or prove this theory.

www.dailymail.co.uk...




Actually, I accidentally broke a girl’s nose when I was a kid with my back swing. I still remember her name. Shirley Prytherch. P-r-y-t-h-e-r, um, c-h, I think. I don’t know, but it sounds Welsh to me.


Track down Shirley Prytherch and ask her who broke her nose as a kid, Paul McCartney or ????

And in the same interview:





The singer recalled a conspiracy theory in October 1969 in which a Michigan DJ claimed his bandmates John Lennon, Ringo Starr and George Harrison had recruited a lookalike McCartney to stand in for him after he 'died' in 1966. The DJ believed the shot of McCartney on the front cover of the group's 1969 Abbey Road album wasn't the singer and the bare feet was a code to mean a corpse. McCartney tells Mojo magazine: 'It was funny, really. But ridiculous. It's an occupational hazard: people make up a story and then you find yourself having to deal with this fictitious stuff. 'I think the worst thing that happened was that I could see people sort of looking at me more closely: "Were his ears always like that?" It was madness.


[edit on 27-8-2009 by virraszto]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

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]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo
Socrates, you don't have a clue what evidence is.

And you do?


Yes. Lawyers tend to know something about evidence.


ev⋅i⋅dence  [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc⋅ing.
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
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.

dictionary.reference.com...



It is the credibility of evidence which is important. And no PID evidence has any credibility.

It's up to the fact-finder to determine "credibility." The legal standard is relevance.

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.

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...

www.law.cornell.edu...


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


The Wired article used photos from a PID board where manipulation of photos occurs.

They knew which pictures were doctored. It's really not that easy to trick experts.


...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



If it was a serious scientific study they would have used original photos - not photos taken off some internet site.


You don't know where they got their photos. The article never said. But even if they did, so what? Those pictures are represented as being pictures of "Paul McCartney," so when they don't match up, there's something fishy going on.




[edit on 27-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

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]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

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




The eyes & eyebrows are obviously not the same.

[edit on 27-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

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.





Maybe Jane was wearing really high heels, but we can see Ringo wasn't, & I doubt Paul's dad was.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

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.








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?



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo
You are now suggesting that the illuminati went to the trouble of adding freckles to 'Faul' - yet they completely messed this up and couldn't even put them in the right places?


I think I've shown already that fake freckles are put on people by quoting Spycraft. I've also shown that photos have been doctored.


And at the same time as the illuminati doctors were muddling about putting freckles in the wrong places they didn't bother with something so obvious as his ears and so had him wandering around with fake ears stuck to the side of his face which were so badly made that they kept coming unstuck?

The fake ears could have stood some improvement.






If in trouble, blame doctored photos. Funny you never provide the UN doctored photos to support your claim.

I've shown evidence of doctored photos. For ex:







Obviously, I want to use un-doctored photos in comps, b/c the differences are more obvious.


What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Except there's plenty of evidence to support PID. I think you need to review the laws of evidence.


He posted these pics to support his theory that they are the same person, but those are not the same noses or eyes.



Mere speculation and opinion.

So, you're saying you didn't post them to support your theory that they were the same person?



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakudo



Non-matching freckles & scars can easily be explained by disguises or photo-tampering. What is really funny about the comp you posted is that Paul's & Faul's noses & eyebrows clearly don't match.


... And more, always under the mustache of the McCartney Sgt Pepper's, maybe it was trying to hide something else: what the experts call it the nose-spinal or sottonasale. This is the point between the two nostrils where the nose begins to fall off the face: "This is also in this case a distinctive feature that medicine can not alter surgery. It can change the shape of the nose but not the nose-cord, "says Gabriella Carlesi. "And McCartney from the first group of photos and the second point that clearly varies.

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
/mw83db



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by kshaund

Please specifically read #3 before you start telling people what, in fact, "fact" means or doesn't mean.


I was referring to the fact that faulcon stated that she knows for a fact what happened. I think we all know exactly in what context she is using the word, so spare me your over elaborate explanation.

The truth is she knows nothing for a fact as if she did and there was concrete evidence, this would not be a conspiracy theory it would then be provable but of course it is not as there is none, and that's a FACT.

[edit on 27-8-2009 by pmexplorer]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

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








that his ears are still the same







[edit on 27-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Dakudo
Socrates, you don't have a clue what evidence is.

And you do?


Yes. Lawyers tend to know something about evidence.


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.

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

All ficticious statements.

You have a record of making false claims. So pardon my sceptism.


Evidence:

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something


No PID evidence has proved anything.


2. something that makes plain or clear


No PID evidence has made anything clear. It is merely opinion. Your opinion does not count as evidence.


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.

Your definitions do not apply to PID evidence.


It is the credibility of evidence which is important. And no PID evidence has any credibility.


It's up to the fact-finder to determine "credibility."


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


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. No professional expert has EVER testified that photographic evidence proves Paul was replaced. And that includes the Wired article.


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...


This rule is nothing more than a codification of the common law. The provisions that all relevant evidence is admissible, with certain exceptions, and that evidence which is not relevant is not admissible are "a presupposition involved in the very conception of a rational system of evidence."

Just because evidence is admissible doesn't mean it will turn out to be credible. That is for the judge or jury to determine.


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.

A SERIOUS forensic investigation would have used ORIGINAL photos.


The Wired article used photos from a PID board where manipulation of photos occurs.



They knew which pictures were doctored.


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


It's really not that easy to trick experts.


Unfortunately, the FACTS expose your claims again. Experts can be fooled:

www.independent.co.uk...

newszealand.blogspot.com...

query.nytimes.com...


If it was a serious scientific study they would have used original photos - not photos taken off some internet site.



You don't know where they got their photos.


Yes we do - they are the very same photos on Sunking's PID site.


Those pictures are represented as being pictures of "Paul McCartney," so when they don't match up, there's something fishy going on.


There's something "fishy" about a forensic examination that chooses to use low quality photos taken from a some biased PID internet site that is known to doctor photos, rather than using ORIGINAL, high quality photos.

If you think obtaining evidence from a clearly BIASED source is CREDIBLE, then you really do need to study some law.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by virraszto
www.dailymail.co.uk...

And in the same interview:

The singer recalled a conspiracy theory in October 1969 in which a Michigan DJ claimed his bandmates John Lennon, Ringo Starr and George Harrison had recruited a lookalike McCartney to stand in for him after he 'died' in 1966. The DJ believed the shot of McCartney on the front cover of the group's 1969 Abbey Road album wasn't the singer and the bare feet was a code to mean a corpse. McCartney tells Mojo magazine: 'It was funny, really. But ridiculous. It's an occupational hazard: people make up a story and then you find yourself having to deal with this fictitious stuff. 'I think the worst thing that happened was that I could see people sort of looking at me more closely: "Were his ears always like that?" It was madness.


Russ Gibb (the DJ) didn't claim that. A guy calling himself "Tom" called into the show saying Paul was dead. Fred Labour heard the show, & looked into the clues, & wrote an article about it. BTW, his ears were not always "like that" - lol.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

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


Sure, they do.


Which part of this do you NOT understand????????????

While Carlesi just remarks: "The doubts are very strong, and there are many mismatches, but it is not possible to express any absolute certainty.

Unbelievable!



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

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

lol - yes, it's always "angles and camera lenses" with you lot. It's funny how pictures of Paul have to be taken w/ just the right lighting & from just the right angle for him to look like himself. What's funny, tho, is that Paul looks like Paul & Faul looks like Faul.






The jawline also measures quite differently as well.



...It only remains to compare the image data prior to the date of the alleged incident and subsequent ones. "The surprise was great," says Gavazzeni: 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





posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

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




The eyes & eyebrows are obviously not the same.


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

[edit on 27-8-2009 by Dakudo]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Dakudo
You are now suggesting that the illuminati went to the trouble of adding freckles to 'Faul' - yet they completely messed this up and couldn't even put them in the right places?


I think I've shown already that fake freckles are put on people by quoting Spycraft.


So quoting Spycraft proves that they put fake freckles on 'Faul'?

Ridiculous!



I've also shown that photos have been doctored.


As above!


And at the same time as the illuminati doctors were muddling about putting freckles in the wrong places they didn't bother with something so obvious as his ears and so had him wandering around with fake ears stuck to the side of his face which were so badly made that they kept coming unstuck?



The fake ears could have stood some improvement.


LOL!!!!



If in trouble, blame doctored photos. Funny you never provide the UN doctored photos to support your claim.


I've shown evidence of doctored photos.


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



What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.



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.

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


I think you need to review the laws of evidence.


I think you need to stop trying to patronise me.



new topics




 
33
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join