The Photographic Evidence?
Photographic evidence can not be used to make a case for or against the PID rumor. Why is that? Photos capture a moment in time. Often there is not clear point of reference or control. What I mean is when you compare 2 images, unless you controlled the distance to the subject, the angle, the lighting, and even the expression on an individual's face, there are many variables that can invalidate your data. On top of that, photos can now be altered digitally with very little evidence. Basically photos are good for general things like seeing if Paul had long hair or short hair. Maybe we could use it to build a case if he had a scar or not at all, but we can't use photos to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Paul is not Paul because of a scar or long or short hair.
Before I go any further, I will just show this and explain what I have heard about it.
Mannerisms in Video Evidence
Below, I have compared a two video segments of Paul McCartney singing the song "Yesterday". Please wait for the file to finish loading, as it is over one megabyte. On the left we see Paul McCartney in a live concert from the 70's. On the right, we see him in the 60's on the Ed Sullivan Show. The clip is only 4-5 seconds long, but it is significant because it displays subtle head motions when he sings certain phrases. There is no audio, but he is singing the line, "Something wrong. Now I long for Yesterday." He repeats the same movements most times he sings the same chorus.
Continue to see the video segment.
The Same Macca Hands
Paul McCartney has very distinct hands as shown in the examples below. Look at the lines in his palm and the shape of his hands and fingers. Paul has a distinct turn in the last segment of his index finger. The last segment of his pinky fingers also seem to bend forward, even when he straightens his fingers. For those of you who wonder why his index finger seems to be a different length in the pre and post 1067 picture, try looking at your own palm and slightly angle your fingers to the left and right. Even your index finger will look a different length compared to your middle finger.
The Same Macca Ears
Paul McCartney has very distinct ears. I do not know how to describe ears, so I will just put pictures here. The main images are from before 1967. The ears that are overlayed are from after 1967. I made the mistake of misplacing the source post 1967 picture for the first image. I will put it up when I find it. I have the post 1967 image for the second image.
Puppy Dog Brown Eyes?
This one is a shocker to everyone regardless of if they have even heard of the PID theories. Paul McCartney does not have and has never had brown eyes.
Many magazines, fan sites, and adoring fans have written about his "puppy dog big brown eyes". They are mistaken. Paul himself said in a pre 1965 interview that his eyes are hazel. Hazel is defined as a mix of brown and green with hints of gray.