Here is what it all comes down to, and maybe Number 9 would like to include this in a more extensive description of the forum. This will be the basic outline of my rebuttle to Patterson's "expert":
If the comparisons are correct in angle and H&W ratio, then they are absolutely physically conclusive and this man is not Paul McCartney. There is no way for these differences to occur naturally or through extensive surgery. The skulls are fundamentally different in size and shape in a way that cannot be caused by growth nor effected through surgery. This is an absolute physiological fact and is not up for debate.
So logically, the following points are the only two points on which a rebuttle of the evidence can be based:
Point 1) The angle. We have deduced through a long string of logical deduction that the angles ARE correct and within a reasonable margin of error by observing the following facts:
The comparison of John from the butcher cover and Sgt. Pepper are from considerably different angles based on the height of the ears in relation to the nose, yet the core features and outline of the skull are a perfect match.
The comparison of Sgt. Pepper to McCartney II is also a conclusive match, despite a large change in angle based on the height of the ears.
The comparison of '65 Ray Davies to '84 Ray Davies is also from a different angle, one being slightly rotated up and away from the camera to the left. Still, the match is completely conclusive.
With these comparisons we have established a significantly wide margin of error which can be used to judge the accuracy of the pre-67 Paul to post-67 "Paul" comparisons. The P to "P" comparisons are demonstrably from much more accurate angles than the comparisons listed above (we can deduce this by the comparative symmetrical distribution of the bridge of the nose and the ears, the orientation of the pupils in the eye sockets and the height of the ears in relation to the nose), and yet THEY DO NOT MATCH. They are WELL within the margin of error established by all the other comparisons, so logically the changes cannot be explained by an inadequate angle.
Point 2) We have deduced through a long string of logical deduction that significant lens distortion, distortion dramatic enough to alter the results, is not present by observing the following facts:
All of the comparison photos used were taken at different times with different lenses, from different distances from the lens and from different areas of the lens. All of the comparisons are a perfectly conclusive match EXCEPT FOR ONE, the comparison of pre-67 Paul to post-67 "Paul". If any of the photos were significantly distorted, this would show up in it's comparison to one or more of the other photos. This does not show up in a SINGLE ONE OF THE OTHERCOMPARISONS It does not, so logically, lens distortion is not occuring in the pre-67 Paul to post-67 "Paul" comparison.
All of this evidence taken together presents an AIRTIGHT case that the pre and post-67 pictures are of two different men.
If you are to disprove any aspect of the comparison, you have to prove that at least one of these logical assertions IS NOT CORRECT. If you cannot do this or are not willing to, then your opinion on the comparisons is irrelevant; they speak for themselves.
Now please, can we actually start debating the COMPARISONS?