|
Post by stormie on Sept 7, 2003 9:21:36 GMT
O.K. answer my question please!!! was Paul murdered or did he die in a car wreck? In the anthology video they show a music video called " free as a bird" and in that video it shows a part where John Lennon is overlooking a car wreck among a crowd! I have seen the comparison's on the web sight and I feel the picture are two different people for sure, my sister suggested maybe that Paul was in a car wreck, but had a stand in till his plastic surgery was healed from a possible disfiguring from the car wreck. I personally think Paul was killed, but, I'm confused on where this story I read on the web sight about a murder was form? was Paul murdered or died in a wreck?
|
|
|
Post by MrVanderbuilt on Sept 7, 2003 9:34:38 GMT
Paul is alive and well, and it's hard to predict when he will die. Considering his healthy lifestyle (vegetarism, exercise) we could assume he might easily become 92 years old.
In that case Paul died in 2034. Cause: natural death by ageing.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 7, 2003 9:45:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stormie on Sept 7, 2003 9:49:40 GMT
so Mr. Vander, You don't believe there is a FAUL?
|
|
|
Post by stormie on Sept 7, 2003 9:53:47 GMT
Thank you Sun King!
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 7, 2003 10:02:18 GMT
stormie, I know it's very, very hard to accept. But it's the truth. Found so many, too many evidences about. But, in the end, I think that "60IF" is really the Beatles apotheosis.
|
|
|
Post by stormie on Sept 7, 2003 10:16:04 GMT
It is a hard pill to swollow, but, I do believe it! I just can't see how Faul can get away with this, and why hasn't he tried to defend himself, and prove this wrong? You know he has to know the rumors are strong against him
|
|
|
Post by stormie on Sept 7, 2003 10:21:09 GMT
how could so many family and friends that knew the real Paul go along with this lie for so long? You know Yoko Ono knows, and Ringo! Not to mention all of his family! this would ruin Faul and Linda's childrens lives! Would he prisoned? have to pay back all the money made from the record sales under Paul's name!! Does Michael Jackson know, since he did buy up all the rights to the Beatles music! So many questions??!!!!
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 7, 2003 10:37:10 GMT
Dear stormie, ALL, quite ALL the answers to your questions already in this forum. Please have the patience to read it all. I'm glad to see you here. Thank You
|
|
|
Post by MrVanderbuilt on Sept 7, 2003 12:24:16 GMT
hello Stormie, First, I would agree with Sun King's suggestion to read more posts. (I know it takes time) From a Scientific and forensic point of view I wouldn't call the things Sun King builds his "thruth" on "Evidence" at all. With the information I've seen and read so far I can't just simply "believe" that Paul is dead. I admit that the best part in the story is of course the section in which the pre 1966 pictures of Paul are compared to post 1966 ones. But this is not evidence since no real official authority on face and skull forensics so far has mingled in this debate and/or confirmed that the comparisons presented are made up in any scientific way (I mean, we obviously need more investigation about the methods of comparing photographic angles, resizing, sources of the pictures used, etc...). The only thing we can refer to as an existing source used by whoever made up these photographical comparisons in the 60IF document is this book Sun King refers to in one of his posts: www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471560782/qid%3D1058543328/sr%3D1-2/ref%3Dsr%5F1%5F0%5F2/026-4565195-8418818 But this book might just as well be a good clue on how some people (whoever) made up this story: They might have used the book as nothing more but a "how to" manual to present us with these 'semi-scientific' photo's. As for the rest: most of the "clues" found on album covers or songs you read about here are pretty far fetched, and are free for any interpretation. Just an example: In the past, tests have been done where random listeners were exposed to backwards messages on various rock albums. No tested person could at first hear the sugested messages right, UNTIL they were told what they were supposed to hear. Just to say that these audiovisual "clues" are highly suggestive and you can use these sort of clues to prove anything you like. The "evidence" of a big change in Paul's voice after "66. (as presented on Uberkinder's site uberkinder.5u.com/paul/voc/vc1.html) is not convincing at all, when you listen thourougly on a good set of speakers. The changes in Paul's voice can easily be explained by other factors, (I wrote more about that in another posting). The story itself of the 60IF document contains more holes than the amount of holes John Lennon counted in Blackburn, Lancashire (in "A Day In A Life"). The 60IF story is an accumulation of so many inconsistencies, and historical mistakes, that it raises the question why the folks who wrote this stuff didn't consult better historical Beatles refferences before publishing their amusing story on the net. In the 60 IF FAQ it is also mentioned that: "60IF is a compilation of evidential documention (including over 10000 original EMI photos, narratives and more ../.." Many people on the board have asked Sun King (and others) to elaborate on this fact, and give us some proof or another that this huge version of the document really exists. No accurate reply on this question was given so far. One could argue that it's impossible to publish this amount of info on the net in a short amount of time, but after all the controversy going on, one might at least expect that some interesting exerpts of the full document would have been published by now, and leave us, sceptics baffled. If this full document contains more and inevitable proof of the death of Paul in '66, one could also wonder why the whole document wasn't fully published in the first place, instead of this highly condensed version. So to answer your question: As you might have guessed by now, no, I don't believe Paul is dead. Here's the link to other stuff I've been writing on this board during the last days: 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?action=usersrecentposts&user=MrVanderbuiltI hope you do enjoy your stay here as much as I do.
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Sept 7, 2003 17:56:08 GMT
In the past, tests have been done where random listeners were exposed to backwards messages on various rock albums. No tested person could at first hear the sugested messages right, UNTIL they were told what they were supposed to hear. Mr Vanderbuilt, your post reminds me of the magazine called "The Skeptical Inquirer". The magazine's purpose is to debunk anything that might be evidence of the paranormal, be it ghosts, ufo's, bigfoot, etc. (They don't touch 'accepted' things like angels too often.) The editors pick something that "needs" to be debunked, and then they gather any scientific data that might be used to debunk the chosen topic indirectly. Then, after piling up reams of "supportive" (but usually not direct )evidence they focus on the topic in question and say, "So see? It probably isn't so." In your quote above, you make a perfectly valid point: most of us, being unaccustomed to listening to reverse speech, miss it unless it is pointed out to us. It takes a little practice to" have an ear for it", and even among those who've done it for years, disagreements can occur about whether some one said, "I shot the master" or "I shot the bastard." Does this address any of the significant material on this site? Not that I can see.
|
|
|
Post by MrVanderbuilt on Sept 7, 2003 19:45:38 GMT
Hi byrdsmaniac, You are of course right about the fact that I am not able to provide direct evidence for the fact that Paul isn't dead. If I could I wouln't be sitting here writing all this. Just the same no one can provide direct evidence for the 60IF theory (so far, that is). So that's a 1-1 score, I guess. I think, this way of reasoning, as you describe it, is what we call "science" and that this is a great achievement which made mankind able to come out of medieval times, and develop into the present state of the modern world as it is today. (The dark middle ages, where BTW you sometimes had the choice between "believing" or getting killed because of your conviction - just as some of us risk being banned from this board for saying what we think?) I therefore am inclined to take your remark on my post as a compliment. Thank you. (I have my doubts whether the phenomenon of "angels" is indeed an accepted thing, but I'm afraid that would lead us too much astray.) You see, this whole PID story is in fact quite harmless, and the people who simply "believe" because some "guru" (no offence to anyone intended) tells them to (convincing them with ficticous "facts") will not really get hurt by this (aside the consideration that some of them could lose the joy listening to Paul's music). There are countless examples in which similar mechanics are used to make people believe stuff. There are other, less harmless people out there, for instance quacks, who make desperate cancer patients believe that chemotherapy is a bad thing, and that they only should drink the herbal tea provided by them (very exclusive and expensive tea, of course). Maybe this seems to be off topic to you, but I'm just pointing out that the initial tactic and machination is exactly the same as what's going on in this whole PID story. I think you missed the point on the section about backwards sounds. It is not because someone is unaccustomed to hearing backwards speech (or singing for that matter) that they don't hear "the right" thing. It is because it's people's nature to be very influential. If I put you in a group with 20 or more people who all claim to hear the hidden message "Elvis is alive, runs a fish 'n chip shop in Ashford" in the latest single release of U2 (just improvising here) in a passage that has a vague resemblance to some of the appropriate syllables (be it backward or not), and if this group keeps repeating that this message is really audible, chances are big that you WILL hear that message. So therefore I think this point DOES adress a lot of the significant material in the 60IF story, and says a lot about what's is going on here. I hope you can see.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Sept 7, 2003 20:32:21 GMT
I can see that you bellieve fictitious "facts" fed to you by the gurus of the cryptocracy, whether it be concerning Faul or cancer. Two of the many countless of similar mechanics that are used to make people believe stuff.
If I put you in a group of millions of people who all believe that Faul is Paul, and "authority figures" such as Life magazine repeat it as fact, chances are you WILL believe it.
I also see that in your circumlocutions you are accusing the proprietors of this site of lying.
|
|
|
Post by MrVanderbuilt on Sept 7, 2003 21:12:06 GMT
Ah! TotalInformation, glad you made it without picking on me personally this time, quite an improvement, I dare say.
To make things clear: I don't believe. Full stop. I only establish facts. Should I conclude that you are now questioning chemotherapy as a cure for cancer?
I invite you to take a closer look at my posts: I never accused anyone in particular of lying.
Since I, (and nobody else really) don't know who the author of the 60IF document is, it is therefore impossible to accuse anyone in person. All I have said is that I doubt the truth behind 60IF. If this makes you conclude that I am accusing the makers of this site personally, this might say more about your true beliefs about the origins of the 60IF document than mine.
Although I didn't find the exact translation of the word "circumlocutions" in my English-Dutch dictionary, I could well enough understand what you ment from the context of your writing. Forgive me, I am only (native Dutch speaking) human.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Sept 7, 2003 21:57:16 GMT
Circumlocution - from the Latin for "talking around." You're accusing without accusing, tap-dancing around the issue.
It's a shame that even in Europe, the study of the classics has largely been thrown out the window. All part of the program to suppress critical thinking.
I don't believe.
Sure you do. You believe the man now known as "Paul McCartney" is the same person who was in The Beatles until 1966. You have established no facts regarding the matter, but you have the belief.
The issue of cancer treatments vs. cancer cures and the public choice economics involved in the health sector is another issue entirely. But suffice it to say you seem rather well-programmed on that matter as well. Watch as your EU directives continue to remove vitamins from your store shelves over the next few years. . .
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Sept 7, 2003 21:59:05 GMT
was Paul murdered or did he die in a car wreck?
From the available evidence, it appears Paul McCartney was murdered and the rotting corpse left at a scene resembling a car wreck a couple weeks later. Keep reading the forum for more.
|
|
|
Post by MrVanderbuilt on Sept 8, 2003 10:38:24 GMT
I should'n have relied on that ol' Dutch-English dictionary, the internet clearly does a better job cir·cum·lo·cu·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sûrkm-l-kyshn) n. 1. The use of unnecessarily wordy and indirect language. 2. Evasion in speech or writing. 3. A roundabout expression. So it seems that you wanted to say that I am evading the subject and am hiding behind endless blah-blah? Why didn't you just say so, without being so circumlocutive? "It's a shame that even in Europe, the study of the classics has largely been thrown out the window. All part of the program to suppress critical thinking." Absolutely agree 100% with you on this one, now here's a surprise! I think however that many of the better post on this board are fine example of fine thinking (regardless of whatever opinion is being supported) so there's still hope "The issue of cancer treatments vs. cancer cures and the public choice economics involved in the health sector is another issue entirely." And even here, I can only fully agree with you. That leaves us with the "believe" issue: I explained earlier that it is not possible to prove absolute evidence of the fact that Paul is either dead or alive. So to be honest with you, I might have been bluffing when I said "I don't believe". I was stating this in the context of the difference between science and religion. In a scientific process, you don't simply "believe" or "assume". You support theories by providing clear evidence step by step. Whereas religion is a different thing, of course. But, if I am free to base my beliefs on what I think makes the most sense, (which I am), backed up by rational and logical arguments, I stick to my opinion stated earlier. In other words, I find the arguments based on 60IF a lot less convincing than the contra-theory that Paul still lives. The question of who of us both might be the most influenced (or well-programmed as you call it) by "the powers that be" is therefore something I will not judge upon. So, now it's back to where it started: you believe what I don't.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Sept 8, 2003 10:47:01 GMT
What is your "contra-theory"? That a man's skull is made of rubber? That a 24-year-old man has a sudden growth spurt of 2-3 inches? There is nothing rational, logical, or convincing to explain the physical differences between the two men in question, despite your protestations to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Sept 8, 2003 11:38:41 GMT
Agree 100% with Total!!! Theres no way to make some sense of Faul
|
|
|
Post by MrVanderbuilt on Sept 8, 2003 11:45:45 GMT
Maybe I should reffer to some of my earlier post here:
I repeat: As long as there is no more information available about WHO exactly was involved in the process of making these photographical comparisons (i.e. authority and expertise), about the original sources of the pictures used, (i.e. the original print sheets, documentated by source and date,), about the equipment used during this process (from scanner type to software used), backed up and approved by an axisting authority or institute on skull forensics, I can hardly consider this aspect of the story as evidence.
Other people on the board have stated (and shown) that it is equally possible to find perfect matches between pre and post "66 Paul pictures.
(Before you ask: no, I will not post such pictures, as much as I do enjoy posting here, I haven't got the time to reopen the research on these pictures, furthermore, I wouldn't know how to morph pics, and I don't even know how to post a pic on this board).
You know as well as I do that in this digital age it is very tricky to try to "prove" something out of a photograph, knowing that the techniques of altering and doctoring have become so terribly refined (an arguement, btw, which is supported by many of the "believers" here, referring to "doctored" Paul pictures).
Even with video images it is very difficult to be absolutely certain someone is, or is not, the same person. As somebody else did earlier on, I reffer to the recent situation with Saddam Hussein. At best, a team of German experts, could determine the person on tape as "most likely Saddam himself". And these are expert people working with much more sofisticated equipment and training than you and me have at home.
Therefore the differences in skull size, eye width and so on, seen on the comparisons, can have various reasons. I am not affraid to state that in my opinion the posibililty of deliberate 'faking' is more likely, then simply lack of expertise. And no, by saying this I do not attack any of the people on who's site these photo's are. Since I have no proof of who made the 60IF story up, I can't accuse anyone in particular. It is possible that the people who set up these 60IF sites genuinely do believe this is a correct forensic procedure, accept this as genuine evidence, and therefore have put this on their site with good intentions. And that's fine with me, but therefore I don't have to buy it.
So far for the image comparison part (which is far most the best thing in the case).
As for the other aspects: I repeat that the vocal comparisons were absolutely non convincing. You know what? The very first time I visited Uberkinders site, and went through the section of the pictures I thought "wow, now this is well done". When I came up to the vocal part I was almost dissapointed because I absolutely couldn't hear what I was supposed to hear in the given examples. And believe me I use my ears for a living so I have trained ears. For the other things I wrote about the vocal comparisons, I reffer to my earlier posts.
As for the 60IF document, there also, I can only repeat what I said before: if you really have a close read, and analyse some stuff, there are too many inconsitencies in it. And what about the "full document version" of 60IF? Come to think of it, this document is supposed to be around since june 18 2002. We are now, as we speak, 14 months and 21 days later and nothing of the rest of this "huge" document has appeared anywhere ever since. Maybe by now it is already confiscated and destroyed by the "pro-faul-intelligence"? I don't know, you tell me.
So my "contra theory": these pictures prove absolutely nothing, and as long as you cannot compare actual physical measurements of Paul's skull then and now (which is, to my knowledge impossible) there is nothing proven.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Sept 8, 2003 12:14:00 GMT
Other people on the board have stated (and shown) that it is equally possible to find perfect matches between pre and post "66 Paul pictures.
No one has been able to do so with verified pre-66 pictures, and neither have you. You are either wholly ignorant, or you are lying. You pick.
the posibililty of deliberate 'faking' is more likely, then simply lack of expertise. And no, by saying this I do not attack any of the people on who's site these photo's are.
Bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by MrVanderbuilt on Sept 8, 2003 12:43:35 GMT
"No one has been able to do so with verified pre-66 pictures, and neither have you. You are either wholly ignorant, or you are lying. You pick."
Look, what reason do you have to be so unfair towards me? I have always tried to exchange opinions in a friendly and polite way, so again, I regret that you do not seem able to do so too. You probably are deliberately trying provoke me, why?
I thought we were slightly improving in the way we communicate here, shame really.
I just DID explain that I don't post pictures here, so of course I haven't proven anything. However I remember a thread about this subject somewhere on the board. If I can get away with it (I'm suposed to be working now)I might look it up, but you know it takes time.
Now, simply replying "Bullsh*t" can only be a part of a valuable agrument if this word's embedded in some sort of explanation why you think my words might be faeces of the bull.
Of course we could forever carry on like this ("Bullsh*t", "No!", "Yes", "No", "your postings are so full of cr*p!" "and yours!" ...but I don't thinks that's something I really look forward to, do you? Just let me know so I don't have to waiste time.
|
|
|
Post by MrVanderbuilt on Sept 8, 2003 13:33:17 GMT
Exactly my point.
I do appologise for the used language.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Sept 8, 2003 13:39:19 GMT
I am being totally fair to you. Ignorance and deceit are the only fair options re: pictoral comparisons.
Your claim that you are calling no one here a liar is bullshit because a number of posters have posted images from self-affirmed pre-9/66 sources that you claim are "likely" faked. You cannot have it both ways.
|
|
|
Post by MrVanderbuilt on Sept 8, 2003 14:30:24 GMT
Look Mr. Toto, (if you may call me Vandi, I think this one's permitted, eh) I've decided to give you you a FIELD day here!! All free and no expenses (I hope you'll enjoy, I doubt it) Because I've had it now. Yes, yes, you cracked me, GREAT JOB!!! You can tell your friends you've dealt with problem case Vanderbuildt, congrats! (sorry, had a hard day at work) Now, in contradiction to my earlier posts, your replys mainly seem to consist out of personal attacks on my person, remarks on my use of vocabulary (now that's what I call "fair behaviour" towards someone who's native language isn't English!) I can only hope you master a second language half as good as I manage to express myself in English. As for the more interessting content of your reply: I clearly only talked about the material in the 60IF document, and never about the numerous examples of the pre 66 magazine outtakes seen on the board. I never said they where fake. Now, since this seems to be a hopeless thing going on here, I have decided to ignore you on this board completely, and I would suggest you do the same with my posts, which of course you will not. As long as I'm not banned here, which I'm sure is just a matter of hours, days... I will not retire from here, no matter how bad, a captain should go down with his ship. Oh, and one last thing: despite the interuption of Long John you deliberately chose to repeat your crossed word again, I think this behaviour could be more or less interpretted as flaming, and therefore you should at least receive a warning from the moderators, that is, if things were really moderated in a neutral way here. So all there is left to say to you is: have a nice life Mr. Toto, I am the weakest link. Goodbye.
|
|