|
Tainted
Evidence and Bogus Photographs
Having laid to rest, on the previous page, the
idea that Paul had grown several inches between 1966 and 1967, I will
now show some more photos which have been used by TKIN and PID theorists
over the years which are not quite right. Some people will go to great
lengths to attempt to produce what they call "legal photographic
evidence" but for each one they show, there are several others which
will disprove what they are trying to say. So, it only stands to reason
that photos would be manipulated in order to make Paul look as different
as possible in order to make this point.
|
|
|
|
|
Let me
introduce to you the one and only Billy Shears! Well, some think it
is anyways. The photo at left, file titled BSlookalike by someone
of the PID camp, is said to be a picture of some Canadian guy named
William Campbell before he had plastic surgury in order to look like
Paul McCartney. I have always contended that it is merely Paul in
one of his disguises. Well, look at the image on the right, which
is how this image actually appears on the White Album poster. TKIN/PID
people flipped this pic to make him look even more different. Amazing,
eh? Someone even made an attempt to colorize Billy's pic to accentuate
the ear on the left side of the image to prove it was some kind of
a prosthetic ear. Incredible, huh? But, the most amazing thing to
me about the flipped photo of "Bill" is how it is often
used to compare with newer pictures of Paul, and how it somehow seems
to match...but look at the fade on the right of the "Bill"
pic in it's correct orientation and an old pre-1966 PID pic of Paul.
Although the camera angles are slightly different, there is no denying
how well the facial features line up.What I don't understand is why
people think this pic will match the later pics of Paul so well because
it really doesn't. Have a look at the ear on the left side of the
pic as the Spies Like Us pic fades in. The ear doesn't match, nor
does the nose! Then there is the infamous Sgt Pepper pic from the
CD released in 1987. This one in particular is being used to show
a change in the shape of Paul's head, and this picture has been so
badly stretched vertically that his features won't line up with any
other photo from that same session. Below is a scan of the original
gatefold picture from the original 1967 Sgt Pepper album: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The photo at left
is from the original gatefold in the 1967 record album cover. If you
don't believe the CD picture was stretched, watch it fade in over
the pic from the original album gatefold at right. See how the face
grows longer and wider even though the eyes remain lined up perfectly
throughout the fade. The artwork for the CD was poorly handled and
is very disappointing to someone like me who works with graphic designs
on a regular basis. I don't know why they were allowed to wreck it
so much and still get paid for their work. Why did they even change
the photos to begin with? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| To further
illustrate how much the photo from the CD was stretched, or elongated,
I made this fade by using their heads from the original gatefold image
as a point of reference. Watch how much this image grows vertically
as it returns to it's original form. Paul's image from this photo
is widely used to show that the person we are looking at in this photo
is an imposter because the eye spacing won't match any earlier photos,
and the head appears longer and less round. Well, no wonder! I refer
you again to the fade with Paul's image from the original gatefold
and this image here. |
I recently purchased my very own copy of the CD and have made another
discovery. The image in my CD booklet doesn't appear to be so stretched
as the one previously shown. This fade shows further illustrates how
the previous example has been stretched even when compared to the
same image that I scanned from my own copy. Ringo's motion is mainly
due to the left-hand page not lining up, but watch the vertical stretching
of the others. Looks as though someone is helping the cause along
by making a very subtle pinch in the photo before making their case
on the internet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Now
THIS is a really fine piece of work. The image to the left is
yet another image that was shopped in order to make Paul appear
like someone else. The image at right is in the correct orientation,
taken from a frame grab of an interview on the street outside
Apple Studios. Not only was the image at left flipped horizontally,
but there is also evidence of a bit of tampering with it's shape
along his jawline, his mouth, and the eye on the left side of
the pic. His mustache may have been tampered with as well as
it appears to have more of a space in the middle, but that is
only my own observation. The way to tell if any photo of Paul
has been flipped is to look first at his nose, and then his
eyebrows. His nose has a slight crook in it to HIS right, or
our left, while his eyebrows, when not furrowed as above, will
have his right eyebrow (our left) arched a bit more than his
left one. The image below gives you the full Macca |
|
brow as he has relaxed it after having
furrowed it in the frame above. There is just no mistaking
that look. Some people will go to any length to prove their
argument, and I think we blew their cover on this one.
In
Summary
Yes, there is tainted evidence and
bogus photographs that are being used out there to prove this
isn't Paul. This argument concludes...check
your photos!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Up
to this point I have used photographs to address the issue of
Paul's perceived changed in height and have shown how some of
the so-called photographic proof of Paul's alleged replacement
have been manipulated in an attempt to make him appear different
after 1966. On the next page I will address one of the more
recent death clues and then show photograpic comparisons of
how he still looks the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
