Post by Uberkinder on Aug 21, 2003 17:07:43 GMT
I have put this up in place of the front page of my site; everybody familiar with the facial comparisons should read it, and I'm sure Sun King might like to talk privately about it:
"Inaccuracies Corrected, Sorry For The Discrepancies."
"Because of certain inaccuracies in the facial comparisons which have recently come to my attention, I have decided it is necessary to completely rework the website and the nature of the text included. While I still believe wholeheartedly that Paul was replaced with a look-alike, I now admit that this is much harder to prove conclusively than previously thought.
The innacuracies in techinque arise from using the nose as a reference, instead of the distance between the eyes. When the eyes are used as a reference, the faces present a technically closer match, though they still greatly differ in several respects. While the facial comparisons STILL DO NOT MATCH, they do provide a much closer relationship between certain fixed points in the skull, making it much harder to establish CONCLUSIVELY that these are two different individuals. Again, this is not to say the comparisons are even a good match, but simply that they are a BETTER match than when using the previous method of comparison, and so it would be intellectually dishonest not to go with the closer match.
Again, I STILL BELIEVE THAT THE COMPARISONS DEMONSTRATE TWO DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS, but I can no longer assert that this can be proven LEGALLY or CONCLUSIVELY, as certain differences in question are in areas of the face which are capable of some movement, and so I have been forced to re-word the site to reflect this new analysis. However, since the changes in the jaw, nose and apparent length of the skull are very unusual and the changes remain fixed and consistent throughout numerous other reference comparisons, I still am of the opinion that these are actual physical changes in the size and shape of the skull, as opposed to simple movement of the jaw, nose and hair. I am simply forced to conclude that the people responsible for picking and grooming the look-alike did a much better job than we previously gave them credit for.
I still believe that the facial comparisons combined with the circumstantial evidence and "clues" supporting the idea of a completely different individual are too great to ignore, and so I still personally believe that "Paul McCartney" after 1966 is indeed a different individual, but to truly prove this in a legal sense will require much more in-depth analysis than we have yet presented here.
I'm sorry if anybody feels mis-led by the previous comparisons, though, as I say, I still believe the differences in the new comparisons are great enough to show two seperate individuals, but it would be intellectually dishonest to keep the faulty information and conparisons available when people are basing their opinions and beliefs on it. I'm sure this will not greatly affect the majority of your opinions any great deal, as the new comparisons still show obvious and considerable differences, and the nature of the plastic surgery still shows a concerted effort to make this man's face a closer match with Paul's. We have uncovered a great deal of circumstantial evidence outside of just the "clues" provided in the Beatles albums.
Sorry for the discepancies. The new version will be available at this address shortly; in the meantime, here is the mirror:
uberkinder.5u.com/paul/index.html
"Inaccuracies Corrected, Sorry For The Discrepancies."
"Because of certain inaccuracies in the facial comparisons which have recently come to my attention, I have decided it is necessary to completely rework the website and the nature of the text included. While I still believe wholeheartedly that Paul was replaced with a look-alike, I now admit that this is much harder to prove conclusively than previously thought.
The innacuracies in techinque arise from using the nose as a reference, instead of the distance between the eyes. When the eyes are used as a reference, the faces present a technically closer match, though they still greatly differ in several respects. While the facial comparisons STILL DO NOT MATCH, they do provide a much closer relationship between certain fixed points in the skull, making it much harder to establish CONCLUSIVELY that these are two different individuals. Again, this is not to say the comparisons are even a good match, but simply that they are a BETTER match than when using the previous method of comparison, and so it would be intellectually dishonest not to go with the closer match.
Again, I STILL BELIEVE THAT THE COMPARISONS DEMONSTRATE TWO DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS, but I can no longer assert that this can be proven LEGALLY or CONCLUSIVELY, as certain differences in question are in areas of the face which are capable of some movement, and so I have been forced to re-word the site to reflect this new analysis. However, since the changes in the jaw, nose and apparent length of the skull are very unusual and the changes remain fixed and consistent throughout numerous other reference comparisons, I still am of the opinion that these are actual physical changes in the size and shape of the skull, as opposed to simple movement of the jaw, nose and hair. I am simply forced to conclude that the people responsible for picking and grooming the look-alike did a much better job than we previously gave them credit for.
I still believe that the facial comparisons combined with the circumstantial evidence and "clues" supporting the idea of a completely different individual are too great to ignore, and so I still personally believe that "Paul McCartney" after 1966 is indeed a different individual, but to truly prove this in a legal sense will require much more in-depth analysis than we have yet presented here.
I'm sorry if anybody feels mis-led by the previous comparisons, though, as I say, I still believe the differences in the new comparisons are great enough to show two seperate individuals, but it would be intellectually dishonest to keep the faulty information and conparisons available when people are basing their opinions and beliefs on it. I'm sure this will not greatly affect the majority of your opinions any great deal, as the new comparisons still show obvious and considerable differences, and the nature of the plastic surgery still shows a concerted effort to make this man's face a closer match with Paul's. We have uncovered a great deal of circumstantial evidence outside of just the "clues" provided in the Beatles albums.
Sorry for the discepancies. The new version will be available at this address shortly; in the meantime, here is the mirror:
uberkinder.5u.com/paul/index.html
