Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Celebrities / Entertainment Industry and other Media
Register FAQ Chat Social Groups Calendar Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 19-01-2010, 10:20 PM   #1
merlincove
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28,537
Default Paul McCartney: alive or dead?

Paul is Dead, Paul is Alive......

The debate rages on, even though the Paul is Dead thread is long dead.

Background information:

Quote:
from hermajesty:

The "official" PID story: Paul was killed in a car crash November 9, 1966 and was replaced by look-alike William Campbell. This rumor first began in October 1969, when clues allegedly planted by the Beatles themselves began to be uncovered. In October 1969, a Detroit disc jockey, Russ Gibb, received a call from a listener (“Tom”) insisting McCartney was dead and suggesting he play the Beatles' song ''Revolution Nine'' backwards. Gibb did, and heard “turn me on dead man, turn me on dead man.''

In an article in the August 2009 Italian issue of WIRED magazine, two forensic scientists conducted a biometrical analysis of Paul pre & post 1966. They actually set out to prove PID was a hoax, but they actually ended up proving Paul was replaced.

In 2009, two Italians, Francesco Gavazzeni (IT analyst) and Carlesi Gabriella (medico-legal), studied images of Paul McCartney taken before and after the alleged death, and claimed there is high probability that it is not the same person, based on analysis of the shape of the skull and jaw, the curve of the jaw, the ear, palate and teeth.[17].

17. ^ Wired Italia, "Chiedi chi era quel «Beatle»", July-August 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead

Here are some excerpts from the article. Also please note that this is a machine translation of the original Italian.

Jaw line: “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]

Lips: "Compared to the previous picture, that of Sgt Pepper's show clearly that the commessura lip, that is the line formed by the lips of the two, it was suddenly stretched. Which obviously is not possible and that the whiskers cannot camouflage. In other words, the phenomenon is all too frequent these days, the lips can be inflated and increased in volume, but the width of the lip commessura cannot vary that much. May be slight, but this is not the case for the photos examined: here the difference between the before and after is too strong to have been caused by any surgery.” [“Ask Who Was the ‘Beatle,’” ********************/mw83db]

Nose: “[A]lways 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 [nasal spine: http://www.revisionrhinoplasty.com/anatomy.html]. 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 cannot 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]

Ears: “Technically called trago [tragus: http://www.westone.com/content/234.html]. All we have two, one by ear, but the characteristics are different for every human being. ‘In Germany, a recognition procedure craniometric, identification of the right ear is even tantamount to fingerprint, ie the collection of fingerprints,’ recalls Carlesi. But what is trago? It is the small cartilage covered with skin that overhangs the entrance to the ear and ear canal, like the whole ear, cannot be changed surgically. How then to explain the differences between the right ear of Paul McCartney in a previous snapshot to 1966 and probably a built in the late nineties? It is not only to betray trago a different conformation as well as other parts, just above the ear canal entrance, measurements and dell'antelice propeller. Things that ordinary mortals might seem irrelevant or unclear, but instead, every day, allowing the experts to locate and identify persons, bodies, photographs.” ["Ask Who Was the 'Beatle,'" ********************/mw83db]

Teeth & Palate: “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 such an anomaly 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 palate of McCartney widens considerably, to the point that the front teeth do not rotate on the 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.’” ["Ask Who Was the 'Beatle,'"********************/mw83db]

The corresponding photos are available at:
Paul McCartney is dead: proof he was replaced
http://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/200...y-is-dead.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by accuracy View Post
The next three posts are from different sites (which i made my favourites some time ago.)

I hope you enjoy visiting those sites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accuracy View Post
Paul is dead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead


"Paul McCartney Dead: The Great Hoax", a magazine reporting on the rumours concerning McCartney.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accuracy View Post


http://invanddis.proboards29.com/index.cgi

Welcome to the discussion! The purpose of this forum is to discuss the idea that Paul McCartney was replaced some time in late 1966. Why was he replaced? The most likely answer is that the original Paul McCartney is dead, but some other theories have been presented here. Please feel free to read further!
The subject obviously casued a lot of interest, and hopefully it can be discussed here further.

Posts have been moved from Stepford toi create a new thread, as although there are links between PID / PIA, Paul is dead posts were derailing and deserved a thread of their own.

Please be nice to each other, respect one and other opinions and POV's, even though you may not agree with them.

This thread is open at your discretion

Last edited by merlincove; 05-02-2010 at 01:42 AM.
merlincove is offline  
Old 31-01-2010, 04:12 PM   #2
light_man
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hermajesty View Post
Except for offering forensic proof that Paul McCartney was replaCIAed.
What, the Wired article photos? LOL. Er, no you haven't.

This is what a forensic expert says about your Wired photographic 'evidence':

Quote:
Facial identification and reconstruction is a very complicated process which requires measurements using actual human skeletal remains not photographs.
I think I'll listen to a forensic expert on what constitutes "forensic proof", Faulcon/Hermajesty, thanks very much and not some rank amateur like you.

The forensic expert totally debunked your 'evidence':

Quote:

"The resolution of the pictures is not comparison quality- different angles
are not a scientific way to examine photographs especially to back up an
argument. Different angles are there to give an overall view only but not
for comparison. It has to theoretically be an exact of the one you are comparing it against.

*Changes in muscle movements in various photographs cannot be seen with the naked eye but can change measurements if you are comparing only photographs.

That is why unless you can see beneath the skin to the actual muscle-then
you cannot say precisely what a facial measurement is especially using two photographs that are that dissimilar in expression for comparison.

*Facial identification and reconstruction is a very complicated process
which requires measurements using actual human skeletal remains not
photographs. Even anthropologists have difficulty sometimes reconstructing
the depth of tissue around the eyes and nose to fully determine the person's
weight. This website has attempted to take photographs and apply scientific
principles in forensics that are just not applied that way.

*Eye color can be manipulated very easily and Paul could have contacts in or anything in those photos of eye comparison-that is a very weak argument when calling your claims forensic science.

*Also with the eyes, you cannot compare photos of eyes where in one picture the person is looking in a different direction. There again, I am referring to comparison photographs used in forensics. Those photos have to be as near exact as possible.

*Ear identification-which they refer to on their website has not been an
accepted science. Refer to www.forensic-evidence.com. It explains a few of these principles. Holland had a case of ear id. Inspector Van der Lugt
testified to the id of an individual based on ear evidence. You can find this at
http://www.forensic-evidence.com/​si...IDearNews.html.

It talks about the fallibility of this idea. After all characteristics that forensic scientists look for in identifying are INDIVIDUALIZING characteristics not CLASS characteristics like the antitragus, tragus, helix, helix rim, and antihelix The court just could not accept his testimony because this is not yet a clear, concise science."

http://rgarypatterson.com/my_review_...ence_23917.htm
Quote:
Also, photographs are proof of identity
Yes. Here's one that proves Paul McCartney is still alive:



Quote:
I also posted information on using ear biometrics in post 7171 to establish identity.
Well, it was total nonsense.

Again, from the forensic expert:
Quote:
*Ear identification-which they refer to on their website has not been an
accepted science. Refer to www.forensic-evidence.com. It explains a few of
these principles. Holland had a case of ear id. Inspector Van der Lugt
testified to the id of an individual based on ear evidence. You can find this at
http://www.forensic-evidence.com/​si...IDearNews.html.

It talks about the fallibility of this idea. After all characteristics that forensic scientists look for in identifying are INDIVIDUALIZING characteristics not CLASS characteristics like the antitragus, tragus, helix, helix rim, and antihelix The court just could not accept his testimony because this is not yet a clear, concise science."
But I guess you know better than a forensic expert, huh?

Incidentally, your avatar which tries to show two different people, is not scaled correctly. Neither are the two pics suitable.



Here is how it looks when it's done properly:


Last edited by light_man; 31-01-2010 at 04:54 PM.
light_man is offline  
Old 31-01-2010, 04:41 PM   #3
subl1minal
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,746
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truthseeker49 View Post
Supertzar, my dad was an artist. He would frequently draw the human body for me, to try to get me interested in drawing. Unfortunately, I didn't have his talent.
I showed him photos from my forum & asked his opinion. He told me that it is definitley NOT the same person & showed me how the facial structure & the body proportions were NOT the same.






Ahhh Brilliant, brilliant thread, this stuff is really interesting me! I remember seeing this like 3 years ago and telling my Mum, fascinated by it, but she threw me off and I forgot about it. I'm on page 65 thus far, amazing stuff.

Anyway, was going to say has anyone noticed Paul and Fauls two front teeth? Pauls was slightly, ever so slightly wonky, yet Fauls is perfectly straight??

I'm sure this has been covered already, but I can't help but notice it in any picture of them smiling side by side!
subl1minal is offline  
Old 31-01-2010, 05:00 PM   #4
light_man
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by subl1minal View Post

Anyway, was going to say has anyone noticed Paul and Fauls two front teeth? Pauls was slightly, ever so slightly wonky, yet Fauls is perfectly straight??
Paul was in a moped accident in Dec. 1965. He chipped his tooth.
light_man is offline  
Old 31-01-2010, 08:22 PM   #5
hermajesty
Senior Member
 
hermajesty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michael_mac View Post
Some one told me in conversation that in age the ear lobe goes longer as fat deposits are left there, just like the stomach area sags in old age so do the ears.
Someone "told" you? I've posted this before, but apparently, it keeps getting over-looked.

...When employing face or lip as a biometric, changing of their appearance with the expression of the subject creates problem but in case of ear the shape and appearance is fixed.

...Identification by ear biometrics is promising because it is passive like face recognition, but instead of the difficulties to extract face biometrics, it uses robust and simply extracted biometrics like those in fingerprinting. The ear is a unique feature of human beings. Even the ears of “identical twins” differ in some respects. There are persons in crime laboratories that assume that the human external ear characteristics are unique to each individual and unchanging during the lifetime of an adult...


Person Identification Using Ear Biometrics
Md. Mahbubur Rahman, Md. Rashedul Islam, Nazmul Islam Bhuiyan, Bulbul Ahmed, Md. Aminul Islam
http://www.journal.au.edu/ijcim/2007...2_article1.pdf

... All we have two, one by ear, but the characteristics are different for every human being. "In Germany, a recognition procedure craniometrico, identification of the right ear even tantamount to fingerprint, ie the collection of fingerprints," recalls Carlesi. But what trago? It is the small cartilage covered with skin that overhangs the entrance to the ear and ear canal, like the whole ear, not be changed surgically ...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
Fabio Gigante Andriola and Alessandra | 15 July 2009
********************/mw83db

Quote:
As far as Paul McCartney is concerned is that I have been watching his ears on various footage and they are the way there were before 66 - they are not like shown in the photo that Hermajesty uses as one of the pieces of evidence relied on for the replacement theory!
You come off as being very disingenuous. I have posted screen-shots from "Mary Had a Little Lamb," "Strawberry Fields," Wings over America Tour, etc. The ears are most definitely not "the same."










If you think those ears look the same, then you must have a really bad eye for detail.

More ear comps at Faul's false ears

Last edited by hermajesty; 31-01-2010 at 08:23 PM.
hermajesty is offline  
Old 31-01-2010, 08:53 PM   #6
hermajesty
Senior Member
 
hermajesty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by light_man View Post
What, the Wired article photos? LOL. Er, no you haven't.
Er, yes I have

Quote:
This is what a forensic expert says about your Wired photographic 'evidence':
Well, of course, there's going to be an effort to contradict the forensics experts who proved Paul was replaCIAed. Do you really think they're just going to admit it?

Quote:
I think I'll listen to a forensic expert on what constitutes "forensic proof",
Yeah, me too, such as Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni, experts in their fields.

Quote:
... Gabriella Carlesi and Francesco Gavazzeni ...: ... She is an expert in the recognition craniometrics, he puts the potential of computers available to a discipline born in the mid nineteenth century: the craniometria note. According to Zingarelli, "is the science that deals with the measurement of the skull in relation to anthropology and comparative all'Anatomia...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
Fabio Gigante Andriola and Alessandra | 15 July 2009
I really like how the shills/disinfo agents are all over this thread whenever PID becomes a topic. So predictable.
Quote:
The forensic expert totally debunked your 'evidence':
lol Yeah, you just can't handle it that the truth is out about Paul's replaCIAment.

Quote:
Yes. Here's one that proves Paul McCartney is still alive:

Just b/c some dorky imposter is pretending to be Paul is far from "proof" that Paul is still alive.

Quote:
Incidentally, your avatar which tries to show two different people, is not scaled correctly. Neither are the two pics suitable.
Of course it it. The point is that the 2 halves of the faces don't match up. At all.

Paul from from "A Hard Day's Night


"Paul" from "Spies Like Us"


Yeah, it just doesn't work.


And finally:
Forensic science proves Paul was replaced
hermajesty is offline  
Old 31-01-2010, 08:59 PM   #7
hermajesty
Senior Member
 
hermajesty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by subl1minal View Post
Anyway, was going to say has anyone noticed Paul and Fauls two front teeth? Pauls was slightly, ever so slightly wonky, yet Fauls is perfectly straight??

I'm sure this has been covered already, but I can't help but notice it in any picture of them smiling side by side!
Welcome to the thread! The canines have come up briefly. This was something the forensics experts commented on.



Quote:
...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 such an anomaly 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 palate of McCartney widens considerably, to the point that the front teeth do not rotate on the axis more as before. With the only on, than the usual canine...

"Ask Who Was the 'Beatle'
********************/mw83db
hermajesty is offline  
Old 31-01-2010, 09:07 PM   #8
hermajesty
Senior Member
 
hermajesty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by light_man View Post
Paul was in a moped accident in Dec. 1965. He chipped his tooth.
Yes, he was, which you can clearly see on the Rain/Paperback Writer videos. So? Is that supposed to explain how his lips got wider, his palate larger, & how the tragus, jaw line, nasal spine, & eye color all changed?



Doesn't look like Paul needed reconstructive surgery to me.

Oh, BTW, here are a couple more comps showing how Paul's & Faul's faces don't match up.





Try, try, try as you might, the Truth about Paul IS going to come out.
hermajesty is offline  
Old 31-01-2010, 09:50 PM   #9
hermajesty
Senior Member
 
hermajesty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,421
Default

A little something on disinformation tactics.

Quote:
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)
H. Michael Sweeney
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
Kind of makes me think of how the findings of recognized experts in the field of forensic science are dismissed. IMO, forensics experts make very credible witnesses. I can see for myself that Paul McCartney was replaCIAed. I don't actually need a forensic scientist to tell me that he was. However, it is nice to have biometrics bolster your argument. Maybe I couldn't tell by looking how much the jaw line or tragus varied from Paul to Faul, but I could definitely tell these are NOT the same faces. And since they are only 4 months apart, I hardly think it's due to "aging."



Quote:
... Since their goal is to silence you, it would serve their ends to have both you and themselves banned from a given forum or online publication. They don’t really want to be there anyway. They want you to shut up. If you’re not there, they have no reason to be there. In all outcomes, it is your removal they seek. They will do whatever is
necessary to accomplish that goal. They have no personal interest in the forums they harass...

If you are a target, anything you post online will be targeted with inane and pathetic criticism. Even the smallest aspect of what you write will be magnified by the fake activists. They will interpret anything and everything in the worst possible light. My advice on this is to ignore it. Real activists will see it for what it is...

Finally, they will often pretend to be activists bored with your writings. This, of course, is absurd. Think about it. When you see a boring article, what do you do? If you are normal, you just don’t read it and go on. You do not spend your time responding to it and elucidating to the world just how boring it is. Only a troll does that. If you are political, that troll is a COINTELPRO operative...

An Introduction to The Signs And Techniques of Online COINTELPRO
By Stephen DeVoy
http://www.indybay.org/olduploads/in...telprofree.pdf
So, if someone claims that they think this thread is boring or stupid, & yet they keep posting here, then you know what's up.
hermajesty is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 01:10 AM   #10
hermajesty
Senior Member
 
hermajesty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,421
Default Imposter detection methods

Light_man, NOT an expert in forensic science, expressed dissatisfaction in certain forensics experts' methodologies, i.e. the ones who come to conclusions that he doesn't like (such as concluding that Paul McCartney was raplaced).

The Italian forensics experts did biometrical analyses on Paul & Faul using photographs. Apparently, this is a method of general acceptance used by other forensics experts for detecting doubles.

Quote:
... A German forensic pathologist studied hundreds of Hussein photos and videotapes, concentrating on his mustache and eyebrow measurements. Then he used computer software to locate specific points such as the tip of his nose and the cheekbone creating a face print which was compared to the Hussein photographs. His conclusion: that there are three Hussein impersonators, all with small, distinct differences.

CIA: Man On Tape Is Saddam http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in544812.shtml
Quote:
In 2003, German television network ZDF broadcast claimed that Iraq's former president Saddam Hussein was frequently replaced with doubles for TV appearances. This analysis was based on sophisticated measuring techniques, which detected discrepancies in the position of Hussein's facial features and blemishes from appearance to appearance. It was supported by the opinion of Jerrald Post, the man who created the CIA's Psychological Profile Unit.[22] ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_decoy
Quote:
Is Kim Jong Il dead? Yes, North Korea’s “Dear Leader” is no more, having passed away in the fall of 2003, writes Waseda University professor Toshimitsu Shigemura in Shukan Gendai... In the spring of 2006, says Shigemura, American spy satellites succeeded in photographing Kim. An analysis of the photographs led to an astonishing conclusion: Kim had grown 2.5 cm!...

N Korea's Kim died in 2003; replaced by lookalike, says Waseda professor http://www.japantoday.com/category/k...aseda-profesor
Quote:
Biometric characteristics can be divided in two main classes:

Physiological are related to the shape of the body. Examples include, but are not limited to fingerprint, face recognition, DNA, hand and palm geometry, iris recognition, which has largely replaced retina, and odor/scent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recogni...an_individuals
Even if Light_man has "issues" with this methodology, it would easily pass the rigorous Frye Standard, which is a

Quote:
general acceptance test is a test to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence in United States Federal courts. It provides that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only where the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community...

To meet the Frye standard, scientific evidence presented to the court must be interpreted by the court as "generally accepted" by a meaningful segment of the associated scientific community. This applies to procedures, principles or techniques that may be presented in the proceedings of a court case...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frye_standard
I don't think it's necessary to have an expert testify that these aren't the same people. It should be obvious, even to a layperson.





And these pictures are no more than 2 years apart, so please don't say it's "aging." Thanks.
hermajesty is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 02:34 AM   #11
hermajesty
Senior Member
 
hermajesty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,421
Default

Background information on doubles

Doubles & Disguises

Doubles & Plastic Surgery

Last edited by merlincove; 04-02-2010 at 11:07 PM. Reason: edited to move
hermajesty is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 04:01 PM   #12
light_man
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 519
Default

Quote:
Just b/c some dorky imposter is pretending to be Paul is far from "proof" that Paul is still alive.
Just because you say "some dorky imposter is pretending to be Paul" is far from "proof" that Paul was replaced.


Quote:
Of course it it. The point is that the 2 halves of the faces don't match up. At all.
Well, they won't if you deliberately use photos which are not scaled correctly!

DUH.

If you do it properly then you get:





Both halves of the faces match up very well, thank you very much.

Please provide a direct quote from those scientists where they say they have proved Paul was replaced.

You never will, because they never said it.

Last edited by merlincove; 04-02-2010 at 11:08 PM. Reason: edited to move
light_man is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 04:08 PM   #13
light_man
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 519
Default




















Last edited by merlincove; 04-02-2010 at 11:09 PM. Reason: edited to move
light_man is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 08:46 PM   #14
hermajesty
Senior Member
 
hermajesty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by light_man View Post
Pure speculation - as usual. You have no proof to back that up - as usual.
I do have proof that Paul was replaced. I have photos, videos, voiceprints, hand-writing samples, & findings from forensics experts.

Paul McCartney is dead: proof he was replaced

Forensic science proves Paul was replaced

And since you seem to lack understanding about what constitutes proof:

What Evidence? A little primer on the law of evidence

You are actually in the much weaker position. You can't "prove" he wasn't replaced. All you have to support your position is that the mainstream media portrays some dorky old guy as being "Paul McCartney," & of course, the imposter plays along. Although, he does drop lots of hints that he's not the original Paul.

Oops! The things Faul says sometimes

So, maybe you believe everything the mainstream media tells you, but I think it's pretty obvious you've been duped by the double here. Maybe at some point you will learn that the mainstream media does not always tell you the truth.

Quote:
And they admitted that their conclusions only raised "doubts" - not proof.
Their conclusions were that there were differences that could not be explained by anything except replacement, not even surgery.

Quote:
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


Quote:
Compared to the previous picture, that of Sgt Pepper's show clearly that the commessura lip, that is the line formed by the lips of the two, it was suddenly stretched. Which obviously is not possible and that the whiskers cannot camouflage. In other words, the phenomenon is all too frequent these days, the lips can be inflated and increased in volume, but the width of the lip commessura cannot vary that much. May be slight, but this is not the case for the photos examined: here the difference between the before and after is too strong to have been caused by any surgery.

“Ask Who Was the ‘Beatle’”
********************/mw83db


Quote:
[A]lways 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 [nasal spine: http://www.revisionrhinoplasty.com/anatomy.html]. 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 cannot 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


Quote:
Technically called trago [tragus]. All we have two, one by ear, but the characteristics are different for every human being. ‘In Germany, a recognition procedure craniometric, identification of the right ear is even tantamount to fingerprint, ie the collection of fingerprints,’ recalls Carlesi. But what is trago? It is the small cartilage covered with skin that overhangs the entrance to the ear and ear canal, like the whole ear, cannot be changed surgically. How then to explain the differences between the right ear of Paul McCartney in a previous snapshot to 1966 and probably a built in the late nineties? It is not only to betray trago a different conformation as well as other parts, just above the ear canal entrance, measurements and dell'antelice propeller. Things that ordinary mortals might seem irrelevant or unclear, but instead, every day, allowing the experts to locate and identify persons, bodies, photographs.”
"Ask Who Was the 'Beatle'"
********************/mw83db


Quote:
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 such an anomaly 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 palate of McCartney widens considerably, to the point that the front teeth do not rotate on the 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.’”

"Ask Who Was the 'Beatle'"
********************/mw83db


Quote:
Just because you say "some dorky imposter is pretending to be Paul" is far from "proof" that Paul was replaced.
No, that's not proof. What is proof is that the jawline, tragus, mandibular curve, palate, canines, eye color, etc, all changed w/in a very short space of time. You should read that article on evidence I linked to above.

Quote:
Well, they won't if you deliberately use photos which are not scaled correctly!
It takes a lot of work to get Paul & Faul "scaled correctly" so that they match up. Just taking 2 pictures and trying to fit them together doesn't work b/c they're not the same person.

Quote:
If you do it properly then you get:

I'm sure you put a lot of effort into getting them to match. The thing is, when you take untampered photos of Paul & Faul, they don't match up. Definitely not a match.



Quote:
Please provide a direct quote from those scientists where they say they have proved Paul was replaced.
Please provide a quote where they said he wasn't replaCIAed.

I think most people on this thread can tell what you are about. And I'm happy to get the information about Paul in front of people. It is sort of my "thing" to get the Truth out about his replaCIAment.

Last edited by hermajesty; 01-02-2010 at 08:47 PM.
hermajesty is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 10:32 PM   #15
light_man
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hermajesty View Post
I do have proof that Paul was replaced. I have photos,
You have photos which you say are proof. That's subjective opinion, not proof.

Quote:
videos,
As above.

Quote:
voiceprints,
Have they been independently examined by other forensic voice analysts?

No. How do you know, therefore, that they are accurate?

Quote:
hand-writing samples,
And who, exactly, did these samples? Some old dear who also does tea leaf readings?

Quote:
& findings from forensics experts.
In which they never claimed proof of anything.

If that statement is erroneous, then kindly prove me wrong by quoting the experts in which they say their findings "prove" Paul was replaced.

Where is it?

Show us.

Quote them.

You never will do that - because you are telling untruths.

Quote:
You are actually in the much weaker position. You can't "prove" he wasn't replaced.
That's not true at all. Ever heard of the term 'burden of proof'?

The burden of proof is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. It's not for me to "prove" anything. You are the one contradicting the 'accepted conclusion'. The onus, therefore, is on you to provide the proof.

And by the way, can you "prove" you haven't been replaced?

Quote:
Their conclusions were that there were differences that could not be explained by anything except replacement, not even surgery.
No. Actually they said that they would need further analysis to come to a definite conclusion on that.

Quote:
I'm sure you put a lot of effort into getting them to match. The thing is, when you take untampered photos of Paul & Faul, they don't match up. Definitely not a match.
Oh, the old "tampered" photo excuse. Yeah - if any photos don't support your argument then you label them "tampered".

Prove they are tampered, then. Show us the originals. You've been asked countless times to provide these "untampered" photos, yet have never produced them.

Hmmmm... Wonder why?

Quote:
Please provide a quote where they said he wasn't replaCIAed.
I asked you to provide the quote where they said their evidence was "proof" he was replaced. This is what you are claiming they said.

However, you ignore my request and then ask me to provide a quote of something I haven't even claimed they said!

They never said 'Faul' had two feet - does that mean he hasn't?

Quote:
I think most people on this thread can tell what you are about. And I'm happy to get the information about Paul in front of people. It is sort of my "thing" to get the Truth out about his replaCIAment.
Yeah - ignore the question (because you know you were telling an untruth) and question my character.

Another nice dodge!

I can see how you have an aversion to backing up your claims.


Last edited by light_man; 01-02-2010 at 11:05 PM.
light_man is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 10:36 PM   #16
light_man
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lauren_almighty View Post
I'm sorry but light_man's evidence of Paul being the same guy is better than the evidence of him being replaced.
You have a good eye for detail, Lauren.

Truth is important here. Wild imaginations can be a dangerous thing.


Last edited by light_man; 01-02-2010 at 11:20 PM.
light_man is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 11:25 PM   #17
hermajesty
Senior Member
 
hermajesty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,421
Default

Light_man, what exactly is your argument? Are you suggesting Paul wasn't replaced b/c
  1. There are no physical differences
  2. The physical differences do not amount to replacement
  3. It is impossible to replace people

I can & have countered each & every one of your so-called arguments, which I might add, seem to be lacking in good faith.

Last edited by hermajesty; 02-02-2010 at 12:04 AM.
hermajesty is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 11:56 PM   #18
hermajesty
Senior Member
 
hermajesty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by light_man View Post
You have photos which you say are proof. That's subjective opinion, not proof.
It's not just me who says photos are proof. It's also US Federal Courts.

What Evidence? A little primer on the law of evidence

And it's not "subjective opinion" when facial features do not have the same measurements. That's objective fact.

Quote:
Have they been independently examined by other forensic voice analysts?

No. How do you know, therefore, that they are accurate?
The voiceprints supplement the other forensic proof. I do not rely on them exclusively to prove Paul was replaced.

Quote:
In which they never claimed proof of anything.
Really? They just said there were sudden changes in "Paul's" features from 1966 - 1967 that couldn't be explained by anything other than a double was pretending to be Paul.

Quote:
If that statement is erroneous, then kindly prove me wrong by quoting the experts in which they say their findings "prove" Paul was replaced.
They are telling you he was replaCIAed w/ their findings. Does everything have to be spelled out for you? Are you not capable drawing logical conclusions based on the evidence?

Quote:
"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...

Gabriella Carlesi adds an additional element: "Compared to the previous picture, that of Sgt Pepper's show clearly that the commessura lip, that is the line formed by the lips of the two, it was suddenly stretched. Which obviously is not possible and that the whiskers can not camouflage. ... May be slight, but this is not the case for the photos examined: here the difference between the before and after is too strong to have been caused by any surgery. 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...

More McCartney sings and shows you smiling more Carlesi collects food ... for his doubts: "To me the proof of evidence is the shape of the palate, yet more than the teeth." ...

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 what trago? It is the small cartilage covered with skin that overhangs the entrance to the ear and ear canal, like the whole ear, not be changed surgically. How then to explain the differences between the right ear of Paul McCartney in a previous snapshot to 1966 and probably a built in the late nineties? It is not only to betray trago a different conformation as well as other parts, just above the ear canal entrance, measurements and dell'antelice propeller...

How not to ask how can a man, in a few months, alter the shape of the skull, palate, mouth, nose, jaw and ears while continuing to sing and compose music? ...

ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
Fabio Gigante Andriola and Alessandra | 15 July 2009
Available at
http://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/201...-paul-was.html
Quote:
You never will do that - because you are telling untruths.
LOL! A normal person legitimately interested in discovering the Truth would go do the research & see for him or herself that I am doing no such thing.

Quote:
That's not true at all. Ever heard of the term 'burden of proof'?
Of course, I have. And since you seem to know so much about it, what would be the burden of proof in this case? Hmmm...?

Quote:
The burden of proof is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. It's not for me to "prove" anything. You are the one contradicting the 'accepted conclusion'. The onus, therefore, is on you to provide the proof.
Apparently, you are not aware that there are different standards of proof for different crimes or torts. Still, I have met or exceeded the highest burden of proof required, which is to show criminal liability - beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quote:
And by the way, can you "prove" you haven't been replaced?
Now you are resorting to complete absurdities. It doesn't really help give your position credibility.

Quote:
Oh, the old "tampered" photo excuse. Yeah - if any photos don't support your argument then you label them "tampered".
No, if photos show evidence of doctoring, then I label them "tampered."

Photo tampering & illusion creation

Quote:
Prove they are tampered, then. Show us the originals. You've been asked countless times to provide these "untampered" photos, yet have never produced them.
Here are some untampered ones that are screen shots taken from videos on youtube. You can go & see for yourself that they weren't tampered with.



You can also see that one's nose is about a foot longer than the other. Here, let me flip it so that you can see it easier.



Quote:
I asked you to provide the quote where they said their evidence was "proof" he was replaced. This is what you are claiming they said.
I am claiming they proved Paul was replaced. See above.

Quote:
They never said 'Faul' had two feet - does that mean he hasn't?
Again, resorting to absurdities that do not help your position.

Quote:
Yeah - ignore the question (because you know you were telling an untruth) and question my character.
An untruth? Everything I've said I've backed up w/ facts. And yes, I do question your character, & for good reason.

Quote:
I can see how you have an aversion to backing up your claims.
Apparently, you have not bothered to look at the photos or articles I've posted. Another indication of bad faith on your part.

But thanks for giving me another opportunity to get the Truth about Paul's replaCIAment in front of people. The Truth is going to come out. You're unwittingly helping the process.

Last edited by hermajesty; 02-02-2010 at 12:05 AM.
hermajesty is offline  
Old 02-02-2010, 12:02 AM   #19
hermajesty
Senior Member
 
hermajesty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by light_man View Post
You have a good eye for detail, Lauren.
That is the funniest thing I've seen in a while. A good eye for detail? Thinking that features that vary quite a lot look the same somehow? Yeah, never mind that it's been proven that the jaw line, tragus, mandibular curve, nasal spine, & lips differ too much to be the same person.



Some video & photo comps of Paul & Faul

Is it really surprising that those playing on the same team would be backing each other up? And I noticed that Lauren posted immediately to back up Light_man's post, who only posts when PID becomes a topic. No doubt alerted to the dangerous situation that someone might figure out Paul was replaCIAed.

Quote:
Truth is important here. Wild imaginations can be a dangerous thing.
Yeah, "wild imaginations" like biometrical analyses by forensics experts. Calculations & measurements may seem like "wild imagination" to people who are trying to suppress the Truth, but they are admitted as evidence into courts of law.

Last edited by hermajesty; 02-02-2010 at 12:04 AM.
hermajesty is offline  
Old 02-02-2010, 12:17 AM   #20
hermajesty
Senior Member
 
hermajesty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by light_man View Post
No you haven't. Two examples:

You said there is forensic "proof":
Paul McCartney is dead: proof he was replaced

Forensic science proves Paul was replaced

Quote:
I refuted this claim and requested you provide the quote of the two scientists in question who said their evidence was "proof".
Saying "no, it's not," does not constitute "refutation." It will take more than some layperson disinfo agent to refute the findings of expert forensic scientists.

Quote:
After all, if they never claimed it was "proof", how on earth can you?
It would be nice if you would read the information I post.

What Evidence? A little primer on the law of evidence

Quote:
You claim you have "photos" which are "proof" Paul was replaced. I can claim to have photos which prove Paul wasn't replaced.
See article on evidence above. Doctored photos don't prove anything other than a conspiracy to suppress the Truth.

Photo tampering & illusion creation

Official Video Tampering

Quote:
And please leave out the "bad faith" insinuations just because your claims are being examined and questioned.
I stand by my assertions that you are acting in bad faith b/c you ignore proof presented & demand impossible proof. Hmmm.. where have we heard that before?

BTW, if you're trying to keep a lid on Paul being replaCIAed, you're not really furthering that agenda by making it a topic here. The more people who see the evidence, the more people are going to figure out he was replaced. Unlike you, most people do not believe that a person can undergo a Kafka-esque metamorphosis in 4 months. The most reasonable conclusion is that he was replaced.

And I noticed that you have failed to answer my question about what your argument is exactly. I have shown that:
  1. There are physical differences in Paul pre & post 1966;
  2. The physical differences amount to replacement because they cannot be explained by error, surgery, aging, or any other reasonable scenario other than imposter-replacement; and
  3. It is possible to replace people.
hermajesty is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:54 PM.