Paul McCartney Conspiracy Theory

Di0genes

Bog Warrior wrote: »

Di0genes wrote: »

Yes because Paul McCartney has never performed any beatles songs since this point live ever......

Right someone who looks sounds and plays like Mc Cartney.

Um can I ask a simple question? Why?

No but his imposter has since


There really are loads of photos analysed here showing correlation and conflict and I recommend reading it

http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc1.html

Superimposing one photo over another and morphing between the two is not the same as analysis. Again not knowing the lens the conditions each photo was taken in, it's impossible.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Yes because Paul McCartney has never performed any beatles songs since this point live ever......



Yes there is. Without knowledge of the lens used in both photos, the type of camera, the distance, it's pure guess work on a bunch of idiots parts, who I imagine have absolutely no working background in forensic identification or photographic forensics.

Your wrong. In the article I quoted from they are a computer expert and a forensics expert who have worked on cases together for the Italian government in high profile cases.

You and I are the bunch of idiots compared to them.

Di0genes

As to the fact that McCartney is "uncomfortable" about the question, really? You think thats weird? Considering one Beatle was murdered by a fan and another stabbed, if some nut came up to him and asked him to deny that he was a fake McCartney and the real Paul died years ago, if I was McCartney I'd be looking for something to hide behind while his security leapt on the loon.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your wrong. In the article I quoted from they are a computer expert and a forensics expert, You and I are the bunch of idiots compared to them.

Oh you're too hard on yourself Brown Bomber. Speaking for myself I've worked with two video forensics experts.

RGDATA!

so Paul already had 'Helter Skelter' in the can in 1966 before he 'died'? amazing.
i'll agree to disagree, and if it's a different paul i'm way way way more impressed by how the fake paul copied the real paul's bass playing style, copied his composition style, happened to be left-handed etc. than any similarities in how they look. cool theory though.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Oh you're too hard on yourself Brown Bomber. Speaking for myself I've worked with two video forensics experts.

And that makes you an expert how?

RGDATA!

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your wrong. In the article I quoted from they are a computer expert and a forensics expert who have worked on cases together for the Italian government in high profile cases.

You and I are the bunch of idiots compared to them.

fair point to make, but if they're not gigging bass players of 20+ years experience who know the beatles catalogue inside out they are idiots compared to me on the musical end of things

Di0genes

And that makes you an expert how?

Did I say it did? I'm just saying I've worked with them and understand what they look for and this morphing stuff is complete idiocy.

Incidentally if you bothered to read that atrocious article, the pair admit that the "duplicate" is anthropomorphically nearly identical to Paul. So to be clear someone replaced paul who looks and sound nearly identical to him? Why?

Brown Bomber

RGDATA! wrote: »

fair point to make, but if they're not gigging bass players of 20+ years experience who know the beatles catalogue inside out they are idiots compared to me on the musical end of things

I get what you are saying, it would be impossible to replicate someone as unique as McCaertney. Looks like i'm an idiot compared to everyone:D

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Did I say it did? I'm just saying I've worked with them and understand what they look for and this morphing stuff is complete idiocy.

So you admit you are not an expert but experts are idiots?

Di0genes wrote: »

Incidentally if you bothered to read that atrocious article, the pair admit that the "duplicate" is anthropomorphically nearly identical to Paul. So to be clear someone replaced paul who looks and sound nearly identical to him? Why?

Bother to read it? I posted it.

In my article:

So thats Different

1. Ears
2. Teeth
3. Lips
4. Nose
5. Shaped Skull
6. Eyes
7. Jaw Line

Most of the differences are not possible with surgery. How do you explain this?

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So you admit you are not an expert but experts are idiots?

If the experts deny alternative explanations for the differences. IE lighting, angle, lens, type of stock. then yes they're idiots.

Bother to read it? I posted it.

In my article:

So thats Different

1. Ears

Haircuts.

1. Teeth

Because people never get cosmetic correction to their teeth.

1. Lips
2. Nose

Weight loss gain.

1. Shaped Skull

They're able to work out the shape of his skull from two photographs? Really?

1. Eyes

Again different locations angles etc can cause this, never heard the phrase "this is my good side to be photographed.

1. Jaw Line

Weight loss/gain.

Most of the differences are not possible with surgery. How do you explain this?

Just did. Now would you stop avoiding this question.

WHY ON EARTH WOULD SOMEONE DO THIS?

mysterious

Di0genes wrote: »

If the experts deny alternative explanations for the differences. IE lighting, angle, lens, type of stock. then yes they're idiots.



Haircuts.



Because people never get cosmetic correction to their teeth.


Weight loss gain.


They're able to work out the shape of his skull from two photographs? Really?



Again different locations angles etc can cause this, never heard the phrase "this is my good side to be photographed.


Weight loss/gain.



Just did. Now would you stop avoiding this question.

WHY ON EARTH WOULD SOMEONE DO THIS?

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Just did

Afraid not.

You didn't explain anything
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66822024&postcount=78

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Afraid not.

You didn't explain anything
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66822024&postcount=78

No I did. You just don't like the explanation. And you've yet to offer an earthly reason for this idiocy.

Di0genes

mysterious wrote: »

I'm not sure what's worse that someone thinks this is something resembling a rebuttal or that someone else thinks such an inane response is worthy of praise.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

No I did. You just don't like the explanation. And you've yet to offer an earthly reason for this idiocy.

Your explanation is that experts are "idiots" and changes that aren't possible through surgery are due to getting a haircut and getting a bit tubby.

I think that is why mysterious was laughing, why I was anyway.

Have you even read my post?

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your explanation is that experts are "idiots" and changes that aren't possible through surgery are due to getting a haircut and getting a bit tubby.

Which is more likely that a surgeon altered a fake Mc Cartney, who happened to sound exactly like Mc Cartney, and his family and friends has played along with this charade for about 40 years.

I think that is why mysterious was laughing, why I was anyway.

So lets be clear you think it's funny that I look for a more plausible reason for alterations in his features than surgery. And you're laughing.

Your Occam's razor is in need of sharpening.

Have you even read my post?

Unfortunately yes.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

So lets be clear you think it's funny that I look for a more plausible reason for alterations in his features than surgery. And you're laughing.

No I think its funny you consider yourself a skeptic and try give answers (in full) like this.

Ears

Technically called tragus.. All we have two, one for each ear, but the characteristics are different for every human being.
(...)
It's that little cartilage covered with skin above the ear canal entrance and which, like around the ear, can not be changed surgically
(...)
(On McCartney) Not only is the tragus to betray a different conformation, but also other parts like, just above the entrance canal, Things that ordinary mortals can seem irrelevant or unclear but that every day allow experts to locate and identify persons, bodies and images."

Your Explanation: Haircuts.

Teeth

"First of all there is right upper canine," observes Gabriella Carlesi. "In the photos prior to 1966 is known as forward of the line of the dental arch. It's the classic case of a tooth due to lack of space ends up misaligned, pushed out by pressure of other teeth. It is rather curious that the same in photos from 1967 forward, but always stick out for no apparent reason: the images show that the space would have to be aligned with adjacent teeth. . It is as if you wanted to recreate a detail in a mouth where anomalia would never could express.

Your Explanation: Because people never get cosmetic correction to their teeth.

Lips

Gabriella Carlesi adds an additional element: "Compared to the previous picture, that of clearly shows that the labial, ie the line formed by the union of the two lips, suddenly stretched. What is clearly not possibleand with a mustache can not camouflage. "In other words, and is a phenomenon all too frequently these days, the lips may be swollen and increased in volume, but the extent of labial can not vary much. May be very slight, but this is not the case of photos examined: here the difference between before and after is too strong to have been caused by any surgery.

Your Explanation: Weight loss gain.

Nose

what specialists call the point or nose-cord sottonasale (edit by me: "sottonasale" = "subnasal" - http://www.dental-dictionary.info/wo...ttonasale.html) . It is the point between the two nostrils where your nose begins to break away from his face: "This is again a trait that medicine can not change surgery. Can change the shape of the nose but not the point nose-cord, "says Gabriella Carlesi. "And among the first group of photos of McCartney and the second one then varies clearly."

Your Explanation: Weight loss gain.

Head made rounder

There is a detail regarding the shape of the skull: "Indeed, the impression is that the shape of the head has been made a little 'rounder', Gavazzeni says:" Then the reduced effective length, using a loophole in use time and that was achieved in print. " Eff activating change the conformation of the skull of an adult is an impossibility.Yet, judging from the photos, is what you see.

Your explanation: They're able to work out the shape of his skull from two photographs? Really?

Eyes

There is a gray area that covers the outside corner of left eye. Only some time no longer visible. And going to search 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 a beauty retouching.

Your explanation: Again different locations angles etc can cause this, never heard the phrase "this is my good side to be photographed.

Jaw Line

The mandibular curve between the two groups of photos showed a discrepancy of over 6 percent, far beyond the error threshold.. But there was more. Changed its profile mandibular development: prior to 1966 on each side of the mandible consists of two sharp curves, since 1967 there seems to be a single curve. In Short, there is a different morphologic curve.

Your Explanation: Weight loss/gain.

Mahatma coat

Look Its always been blatantly obvious to me

Someone so ultimatley cool he's measured in Kelvin like John Lennon is not gonna befriend and get involved in a make or break songwriting Partnership with anyone that thinks Mull of Kintyre or the Frog chorus are acceptable things to release with yer name on :D:D:D


What about Ringo I hear you say, Well, Octopuses Garden is a decent tune, and he never tried to sing on Thomas the Tank engine

Mahatma coat

Di0genes wrote: »

Oh you're too hard on yourself Brown Bomber. Speaking for myself I've worked with two video forensics experts.

Did they Drink Tea or Coffee????

mysterious

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Did they Drink Tea or Coffee????

When you get his answer, I will want proof.:D;):p:D

mysterious

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Did they Drink Tea or Coffee????

When you get his answer, I will want proof.:D;):D

mysterious

john made it obvious that Paul was killed. People never got the picture, even when John made the picture a reality for all to see. People were still blinded by the obvious.

Cranberry sauce anyone?

Di0genes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Did they Drink Tea or Coffee????

No unlike the Aussie boards beers they hung around with me.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No I think its funny you consider yourself a skeptic and try give answers (in full) like this.

Ears

Technically called tragus.. All we have two, one for each ear, but the characteristics are different for every human being.
(...)
It's that little cartilage covered with skin above the ear canal entrance and which, like around the ear, can not be changed surgically
(...)
(On McCartney) Not only is the tragus to betray a different conformation, but also other parts like, just above the entrance canal, Things that ordinary mortals can seem irrelevant or unclear but that every day allow experts to locate and identify persons, bodies and images."

"Ordinary Mortals?" Are they suggesting they're beyond ordinary mortals. Now that is hubris.

Again, we don't know the details and quality of the photos they're comparing against each other. This smug could be accounted by a two different film stocks.

Teeth

"First of all there is right upper canine," observes Gabriella Carlesi. "In the photos prior to 1966 is known as forward of the line of the dental arch. It's the classic case of a tooth due to lack of space ends up misaligned, pushed out by pressure of other teeth. It is rather curious that the same in photos from 1967 forward, but always stick out for no apparent reason: the images show that the space would have to be aligned with adjacent teeth. . It is as if you wanted to recreate a detail in a mouth where anomalia would never could express.

Your Explanation: Because people never get cosmetic correction to their teeth.

That still doesn't discount the possibility that he tried to get the tooth fixed for cosmetic reasons.
Lips

Gabriella Carlesi adds an additional element: "Compared to the previous picture, that of clearly shows that the
, ie the line formed by the union of the two lips, suddenly stretched. What is clearly not possibleand with a mustache can not camouflage. "In other words, and is a phenomenon all too frequently these days, the lips may be swollen and increased in volume, but the extent of labial can not vary much. May be very slight, but this is not the case of photos examined: here the difference between before and after is too strong to have been caused by any surgery.

Okay to be clear they're saying that it's clearly impossible for this change to have happened, it's just also so clear that'd they're the only non ordinary mortals who spotted this.

Thats the having your cake and eating it argument.

There is a detail regarding the shape of the skull: "Indeed, the impression is that the shape of the head has been made a little 'rounder', Gavazzeni says:" Then the reduced effective length, using a loophole in use time and that was achieved in print. " Eff activating change the conformation of the skull of an adult is an impossibility.Yet, judging from the photos, is what you see.

Seriously brown bomber can you tell me what "using a loophole in use time and that was achieved in print" means?

There is a gray area that covers the outside corner of left eye. Only some time no longer visible. And going to search 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 a beauty retouching.

A Gray spot that is occasionally visible. Again explained by different stock lighting conditions as well as makeup.

Your desperate use of similes aside you've yet to explain why on earth anyone would do this or how it was carried out.

Ericka89

Some videos on the conspiracy

Penn

Not only do I agree with Diogenes that no one has offered a valid explanation as to why anyone would have done this, but also

Why leave so many "clues"? And why would none of the real Pauls family say anything? And why wouldn't the new Pauls family or friends say anything? Even if he looked like or was made to look like Macca, he also doesn't have his memories. What if he met someone who knew the real Macca but he didn't know who they were? What if he slipped up in an interview? Even if he didn't slip up in an interview or in life so far, the possibility that he would would have been considered before they decided to do this

It's absurd. It really is. Its not like he was a high up politician or something, he was a musician. A member of the Beatles even died before that and they didn't replace him. When John Lennon left or whatever, they didn't kill him and replace him with a lookalike

All these little clues like if you look at this album cover underwater after licking a frog then replace all the letters of the album name with the words "Paul is dead" you get "Paul is dead" mean absolutely frig all when you realise that it would have been the stupidest thing they could ever do

EgoApocalypse

I find this whole thing Interesting, But this is strange,

Skip to 3 mins 26 seconds, and look at his right eye, Weird and why?

Bog Warrior

^ this is an amazing series of about 80 short films about the conspiracy and the beatles in general

its compelling, recommended for anyone interested in the subject or beatles fans

Watch from the start but it gets much better later in the series

all here

http://www.youtube.com/user/iamaphoney

Lab_Mouse

mysterious wrote: »

When you get his answer, I will want proof.:D;):p:D

Not a hope:D

he will just say:

As I said specifically in this thread already, I'm not responsble for what any of you learn or believe

sound familar?:pac::D