It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by anon217
i heard paul mccartney had atleast one freemason link before he was famous, i really despise the illuminati, has everone forgotton about them or is everyone bored of hearing/reading about that #?
Originally posted by kshaund
I'm not young - I'm in my fifties and have never met (or heard) of anyone who's eyes have dramatically changed AS AN ADULT (unlike the baby site you want to rely on) - they are also on that talking about blue eyes changing, not brown.
I'm curious about the idea of Paul maybe being substituted - and find it so funny how adamant and angry and rude posters get for even entertaining the notion that it might be true.
Real researchers keep an open mind and follow the clues, not try and fit results into their BS (belief systems).
Originally posted by Wally Hope
Originally posted by Bldrvgr
...Ahh so please explain which people in comparison you gave of those with eyes changeing the same colors?...
The eyes have been explained already in this thread and you ignored it, now you want pictures? Links and personal accounts not good enough?
Did your computer come with Google?
Just do some self edumacation and it might help you to determine if something is logical before you waste a bunch of time having to be schooled by someone else.
This is just one link out of a whole bunch on the world wide web, that we are now communicating on, there's a world of information out there where you can find answers to your own questions, you should check it out sometime ....
Are all those people lying? Did the Illuminati get to them ahead of me?
Eye colour CAN change, get over this already.
[edit on 28-7-2009 by Wally Hope]
Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I find it a little amusing how non-scientists are so quick to dismiss forensic evidence that doesn't support their pre-conceived notion. If science proves w/ a biometrical analysis that Paul was replaced by a double, then it must be wrong. lol This is just another example of confirmation bias, imo. I might add that the scientists originally set out to prove PIA, but unlike *some* people, they were willing to follow the evidence & come up w/ a theory that fit the evidence, & didn't try to make the evidence fit their theory.
Anyway, big difference in the ears & eyebrows here:
[edit on 31-7-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]
Originally posted by magnolia_xx
when you compare pics of Paul I always see the same guy, in some photos he is younger and chubby, in other ones he is older and his eyes got some discoloration from age (all my grandparents did and my father at 63 has hazel/grey eyes while he used to have dark brown eyes when he was a young man).
As I previously wrote, craniometry cannot be applied just to pics to be reliable, they actually need the head of the living person or the skull.
You go on mentioning "Wired" study, but I read the whole article in Italian (I am Italian) and the forensic experts did not conclude that there is a fake in place of Paul McCartney, they only showed some difference which they are not able to explain.
This is not a proof and no judge would ever consider it as a proof.
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...
[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).
Forensic science (often shortened to forensics) is the application of a broad spectrum of sciences to answer questions of interest to a legal system. This may be in relation to a crime or a civil action. Besides its relevance to a legal system, more generally forensics encompasses the accepted scholarly or scientific methodology and norms under which the facts regarding an event, or an artifact, or some other physical item (such as a corpse) are ascertained as being the case. In that regard the concept is related to the notion of authentication, whereby an interest outside of a legal form exists in determining whether an object is what it purports to be, or is alleged as being.
How could the Beatles record Strawberry Fields with this guy singing and playing the mellotron just a couple of weeks after Paul's death?
One could think that they actually knew that Paul would had died on a certain day, otherwise they would never have been able to replace him immediately.
Otherwise, when did Paul die? Where are the proofs that he is dead
Originally posted by magnolia_xx
I never saw such a horrible photo of Paul, poor guy
Anyway, I can see a bad photo of a chubby young Paul and then another photo of Paul, a few years later. The face is the same, only chubbier in the first pic.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by Hellmutt
There's also another video in existance, where George is trying hard to teach "Paul" to play a simple riff on the bass.
If you can find that I'd love to see it.
The only thing I can think of is there was the clip of Paul and George arguing about a riff George was to play on one of Pauls songs in the Let It Be movie. George couldn't get it right to Pauls satisfaction. I find it hard to believe Paul would not be able to play something George showed him. Paul taught George a lot in the early days, and he was a mediocre player compared with the guitar giants of his day in London, Hendrix, Clapton, Page, Beck etc...Listen to his Beatle solo's, very basic stuff. Paul was a much better musician on all instruments than the other 3, including the drums.
You should watch Let It Be and then come back and say Paul had trouble playing any instrument let alone bass.
BTW I'm no Macca fan, just denying ignorance.
[edit on 15/7/2008 by ANOK]
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.