Paul McCartney died in 1966 - replaced by Billy Shepherd

Originally posted by Dakudo

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

It's funny how your photo comp was taken from above looking down, while mine is taken from straight ahead.




[edit on 27-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

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

Well go back and listen to those songs I suggested and decide what YOU think. Compare them to Paul's songs before '67 and make your own decision. Perhaps you could add some insight as many PIDers do to enlighten each other.

IMO, Lewisohn is a major disnformation agent.

Originally posted by edmond dantes

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.

Sorry, but I don't think you have a good eye for details. The eyes & eyebrows don't fit to make a normal-looking face. There is definitely something "off" about it.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

This is a great comparison faulcon. Either Faul was wearing high heels or he is at least 2 inches taller than Paul. I think it's the latter.

Originally posted by SednaSon

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

Well go back and listen to those songs I suggested and decide what YOU think. Compare them to Paul's songs before '67 and make your own decision. Perhaps you could add some insight as many PIDers do to enlighten each other.

It's so hard to know w/ the voice technology that's available.

When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing
www.washingtonpost.com...

But I'd be interested in knowing switching yard's opinion on that, too.

Originally posted by SednaSon
Either Faul was wearing high heels or he is at least 2 inches taller than Paul.

Well, you never know w/ him - lol

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by edmond dantes

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.

Sorry, but I don't think you have a good eye for details. The eyes & eyebrows don't fit to make a normal-looking face. There is definitely something "off" about it.

It's cause it was a sloppy job of properly sizing.

Originally posted by SednaSon

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

This is a great comparison faulcon. Either Faul was wearing high heels or he is at least 2 inches taller than Paul. I think it's the latter.

Well, we can't see the feet, so who knows? Paul could have been standing on a step or rise, or Paul's father could have been standing in a low spot. Without seeing the feet, the comp is worthless.

Also, you must consider that the pictures were taken at least 6 years apart. My mother-in-law lost about 4 inches between 2000 and 2004 due to compression fractures and Osteoporosis. It does cause a loss in height in old age. The point is, there could be many explanations for the difference, the least of which is that Paul was replaced.

This thread can provide me with some unexpected amusement.

I just asked my housemate to look at the set of a dozen or so pictures each of Faul and Paul and without any clues just asked him to pick out any pictures he thought may not be Paul McCartney. He picked several of the Faul pictures and only one of Paul - bottom row, first left - which is a bad picture anyway.

Then totally unprompted he went into a right little rant that lasted for several minutes, and included lots of swearing.

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.

All this from someone who isn't even interested in the PID theory, but giving him a chance to think about it reaped an extremely funny reward.

Just an aside - this thread is about the change of George Washington's image on a postage stamp. The interesting thing is the years concerned - 1966 & 1967.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 27-8-2009 by berenike]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

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.

Anyone can do a google search. Your "evidence" is not credible.

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.

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.

Says the person who earlier claimed that Paul never had freckles!!!

SOURCE:

www.davidicke.com...

You now claim that the freckles on Paul - which you were earlier claiming didn't exist - now don't match 'Faul's' freckles!!!

Sorry, but your inconsistent statements on this matter completely discredits any comments you now make on the freckles. Why should we listen to your opinion on whether the freckles match when you can't even get your story straight about whether Paul had freckles or not?

I do claim the forensic science proves Paul was replaced.

Which is completely untrue - as I proved with a direct quote from one of the scientists.

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

So? What's your point?

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

Has any evidence of 9/11 being an inside job ever been presented to a court or jury?

Irrelevant to my point regarding PID and the courts.

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.

Where did I say it did? Please read properly.

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"

You were quoting from a LAW site! The fact finders, therefore, related to the COURTS not this site!

& 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?

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

Try again, Faulcon. 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.

Weight of evidence: The balance or preponderance of evidence; the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence to support one side of an issue.
en.mimi.hu...

Term: Weight Of The Evidence
Definition: The balance of the greater amount of credible evidence.

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

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

Then why are YOU refering to the law's definitions of evidence etc?

So, I'm pretty confident the photos & other evidence would come in one way or another

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

Admissibility or otherwise of a witness’s opinion in criminal cases.

THE GENERAL RULE

The general rule is that the opinions of witnesses are not admissible.

Therefore your lay person's OPINIONS about the photos are not admissible - and therefore not credible, which is the point I was making.



[edit on 27-8-2009 by Dakudo]

i208.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjobSorry, but I don't think you have a good eye for details.

LOL!

Says the person who claimed that Paul never had freckles!!!




[edit on 27-8-2009 by Dakudo]

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by Dakudo

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

It's funny how your photo comp was taken from above looking down, while mine is taken from straight ahead.

It's "funny" that this one WAS taken "straight ahead" and there's STILL no height difference!

Not the same man?

"Obvious differences"????

Different chins, teeth and noses?????????



[edit on 27-8-2009 by Dakudo]

Originally posted by edmond dantes
Well, we can't see the feet, so who knows?

Here, you can:

Originally posted by Dakudo

I think we've already addressed how easily it would be to fake freckles. The freckles you keep showing don't even match.

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by edmond dantes
Well, we can't see the feet, so who knows?

Here, you can:

You can in this too:





Keep plugging away Faulcon with your debunked photo and ignore all the other photo evidence which shows there is no height difference.

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, so I don't really care what you believe.

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.

& 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.

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:

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.

Federal Rules of Evidence
www.law.cornell.edu...

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

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

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

I've already shown that's not necessary, esp not if the evidence is self-authenticating.

Admissibility or otherwise of a witness’s opinion in criminal cases.

THE GENERAL RULE

The general rule is that the opinions of witnesses are not admissible.

Please cite to your source.

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.

Rule 704. Opinion on Ultimate Issue

(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact...

Federal Rules of Evidence
www.law.cornell.edu...

Therefore your lay person's OPINIONS about the photos are not admissible

I'm not a layperson, & I've shown that they'd be admissible by actually citing to LAW.


[edit on 27-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]