Paul Death Summary
Paul died. Ideas are not scary: try them on, then decide. Learn to see the difference(s) and then go back. Then go forward into the general case, too.
Work through these. I mean work through them. The last two photos are from Lari's new photo book from 1965; they show the yes very clearly in a fairly good colour balance. If anything, they need a bit of blue in the images, but that would not make the brown green. The ones from SFF show a desaturated (slightly) green set of eyes, no question.
Ask me whatever you like. But do not *assume* there was no public lie and what you were supposed to think was a real truth. Then get to know the original vs the replacement. It doesn't mean hate anyone; but knowing that this involved intelligence circles is important:
the rumour started at the end of 1966. There are 4 sources for this and multiple historical reasonings. Sorry. As to this being merely "stupid", be careful and you won't be stupid in anything, but you may be against a mainstream which does not know certain things.
Odd ideas can be wrong or right or indeterminate without being stupid. Very few sources were available right when it happened; assumptions were made and who WOULD have thought it? No-one, unless told. Got that? That is how it works.
The general reasoning and specifics you need (since you are prejudiced), in background to the case and philosophical issues, is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTZrVOU4GsQ with more imagery (incl. rumour mentions) in hr 2 of 2. The coats of arms are also given. George Martin (producer) and "Paul McCartney" (whoever he is) show the same in their official coats of arms.
The eyes were brown (mid-to-dark), then green. Other images doctored, contacts worn, etc. The real cartilage on ears is significantly different (seriously and multiply different), but fake ears were also worn. Learn to see it then say you can go back. You won't. As to singing, etc., different heart, body mannerisms, etc. History, philosophical arguments, news issues, etc. all show it. But you have to bother. It's quite publicly knowable now but was then as now, "unthinkable".
No, you were fooled and fool yourself. That's all.
Why cover up in the formal sense. Why replace? The Beatles were:
a) huge business for a lot of people, including the government: Wilson's government did not have to devalue the UK Pound (money) because of the Beatles' direct and indirect economic impact https://mostlyeconomics.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/how-beatles-saved-uk-from-its-foreign-exchange-crisis-in-1960s-some-lessons-for-india-too
b) Paul was going to speak on the JFK cover-up only 2 years after the JFK murder, and people would have flocked to Mark Lane's 1966 book and 1967 movie if so, as Mark Lane tells with detail, in his recent autobiography http://plasticmacca.blogspot.ca/2013/11/jpm-hoped-to-expose-jfk-assassination.html
c) there was a cultural plot and experiment afoot in the US and England, about popular culture and war, marginalizing a small group of early, natural "hippies" by infiltrating, debasing, promoting and busting them http://informationfarm.blogspot.ca/2010/02/inside-lc-strange-but-mostly-true-story.html
It will be upsetting for you to think it, and to think you might have to "believe anything" if you do even think it for a moment, but you don't have to be afraid of entertaining fully an idea. It is called lack of bias. Go to http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.ca/2015/11/paul-is-dead-and-kubricks-shining-plus.html search "Who would he be?"
Or sift through these instead (they are at that link above) and include the eyes and ear cartilage.
We were publicly believing something very wrong, and there is a whole supportive case, too -- and most people you would not be allowed on a jury for a reason: most are prejudiced. Never mind for a moment if or why a case would be in court, just think of what a jury does, or a proper scientist ... they use method and no emotional prejudice. No idiot here; though there are some uncareful or loopy people everywhere, including on the "socially accepted" side.
Kubrick would want you to -- yes, really. So would King and others. Try on the idea.
Here are the Strawberry Fields promotional film 1967 (used in Magical Mystery Tour film) photos of eyes. (The Beatles put real history in only once about the yes: they showed the green eyes clearly, though with desaturation a bit, to take some yellows out, and in one print put too many in):
Is "he" wearing contacts? No, these look natural, though glass contacts were available in the 1930s for Hollywood and spies for brief wearing. The rest of the photos of Sir Paul (the replacement) have doctoring, bad lighting, contacts for brown or are green and are desaturated so much in the whole photo that you think it's brownish ... until you note what is happening.
Here is a too-dark one of real Paul:
And here are the clearly brown yes (perhaps missing a bit of blue in the film and print, but that would not make these eyes green) in Emilio Lari's newly released photos from 1965:
Here are their real ears side by side. Spot the major differences in all angles and cartilage folds on outer ear area (they are not at different views, both being seen from the side, so no, this is not perspective):
For the written-out case (this is only a summary in this Twitlonger post), see article (long and currently badly edited because of a Google blogger script error preventing any more editing): http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.ca/p/blog-page_24.html