|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 28, 2003 15:04:24 GMT
Hi everyone - new to this site and got a question for you all.
I'm a Beatles fan and a collector of beatles memorabilia. I've been aware of the Paul is Dead rumour (for want of another word!) for several years now and am not convinced either way really,i have my beliefs on the matter (which i wont go in to on this message - ask if you're interested!). However i do have an open mind.
I have got several Beatles signed pieces which i have collected over the years and my question to you all arises from signature authentication. When i buy signed documents, photos etc, i like to be certain of their authenticity. The only way you can be certain is to be there in person at the time of the signing. Sadly that is not possible. The second best way therefore, as im sure most of you know, is to ask a forensic examiner to study the questioned signature and to compare it with a signature one knows to be genuine (eg. cheques, business contracts, handwritten notes etc).
For this type of authentication it is of the utmost importance that the forensic examiner is a good, experienced one. The top in the country are asked to give evidence during murder cases and for criminal prosecutions etc so i'm sure you'll appreciate that these guys are trusted implicitly and that handwriting examination is an exact science.
This way of authenticating Beatles signatures has gone on for years and i ask therefore, how is it that not once has any examiner discovered that Paul's writing pre 66 and from 67 onwards is different? Surely after all these years someone would discover this. I believe that an individual could be trained to look, act and even sing in the same way as another person however i do believe that handwriting is an extremely individualistic trait- one which an imposter could not replicate.
I welcome any thoughts on this as i haven't seen this topic raised elsewhere on the site. I have researched this subject in a lot of depth so far and this is the one problem i have with the theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 28, 2003 15:18:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 28, 2003 16:15:46 GMT
Thanks for the quick reply!
I have looked at these links before however i did not find them hugely helpful.
Firstly, it is a simple fact that people's writing does change, depending on age, pen used, there are a large number of contributing factors). An untrained eye (like myself for example) could look at those samples of Paul's writing pre and post "time of death" and claim that these are not the same person.
What i am getting at however is why no one in the professional sphere (of forensic examiners) who study Beatles signatures day in day out for private clients has come forth and said anthing if they found discrepencies. This fact does confuse me somewhat if the whole Faul thing is to stand up on its own.
Again, any comments are welcomed
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Oct 28, 2003 18:18:40 GMT
I had emailed Prof. Chase Goodwin some time ago to, he has a site on the net. I asked him if I could send him some McCartney's manuscipts to know his opinion but he didn't answer me   |
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 29, 2003 13:32:37 GMT
shame, it would have been nice to know his opinion on the matter.
As i mentioned before, if mccartney really did die, then that may explain why an example of paul's autograph may said to be a fake- the examiner may be comparing it to the signature of a different man (ie paul and faul).
Any more thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheeCavendeshLane on Oct 29, 2003 14:01:24 GMT
THE KING IS NAKED
I see what you are saying--but you are assuming that the
comparason has occurred, that some one has made the pre and
post 1996/67 comparason and has found nothing, but I am
not sure that it has occured. If I send a photograph of Fau with
Faul's signature on it to an anlayst and he verifys the signature
of Faul in a comparason against contracts written at any time post
1967, why would he then insist on going back further to verify
the signature against documents known to have been written
before 1966 unless I ask him specifically to make that comparason?
But you are right you would think that it would have happened
at least once where some one has a signature purported to be
Paul's from 1960 where the analyst only had verified signatures
post 1967 for comparason. But the King Is Naked. How on Earth
would the analyst explain the descrepancy in his own mind? Would
the analyst say gee Paul McCartney must be dead and must have
been replaced by an imposter or would he say gee McCartney's
signature must have changed a bit over time--if I have a signature
pre 1966 that I know for a fact is McCarnteys and one post 1967 that
I know for a fact is McCarnteys, how will I explain the difference?
What would trigger me to think outside the usual box of explanations
available to me to conclude that McCartney had been replaced? Wouldnt I rely on more conventional explanations to account for
the difference? I think it would be interesting to pay a guy to do it--
take two k nown McCartney signatures pre and post 66/67 and
just ask if the signatures are the same and whether the
signatures were written by the same individual. Dont tell the guy
that they are known and verified McCartney signatures. One problem that I have with these things is that there is always so much disagreement on among these sorts of experts. I think of the efforts of Kennedy Assassination researchers into Oswald and comparason
of writings supposed to have been written by various Oswalds. Also there is a famous writing that purports to be a letter from Oswald
to a Mr Hunt--there is considerable debate over the authenticity of this letter. But aside from that, the House Assassinations Committee
hired teams of analysts and these analysts were never unanimous in their conclusions. A hand writing analysts works as far as collectables
goes because people agree to relay on their conclusions and the
conclusions of the auction houses.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 29, 2003 14:45:28 GMT
You're right, i'm glad yopu see my pint of view! I think that someone should have picked up on it by now.
Even if someone's signature has changed over the course of time (not over the period of one year however), a forensic examiner will still be able to determine whether or not it was written in the same hand.
There is a top forensic examiner who i have used in the past named Mr Starling. He works in the California state forensics department but he spent 15 years at the head of the FBIs forensic science department. I've used his services before to authenticate a beatles signed piece and if i remember correctly it costs something like $150 for each examination. Don't fancy paying that but anyone who does is welcome to ask him to compare Paul and Faul's signature...
|
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Oct 29, 2003 16:32:38 GMT
no one can dispute the authenticity of a signature except its author... everything else is just opinion, even though the experts are making "educated" guesses. So it would come down to Faul saying "that is / is not my signature"..... |
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 29, 2003 17:51:11 GMT
Ok good point, it does eventually come down to an opinion. As i said before, the only way of guarenteeing who wrote the signature is to be there at the time of the signing.
However the point still remains that it would add credence to the theory that paul is dead - after all, no one Knows that mccartney is dead, its just educated opinion. God we could go down this road forever!
Although it is just opinion, it comes down to whose opinion it is. Obviously the more experienced the examiner, the more likely it is that his opinion will be valued as true
|
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Oct 29, 2003 17:56:43 GMT
the point is, you would never be able to verify a pre-66 signature as McCartney's....
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 29, 2003 18:41:36 GMT
Well practically you could- if someone had gotten a signature from Paul at the height of Beatlemania ie pre 66, and they were there at the time of signing, then this signature would be verified as mccartney's. They would know it Are you saying that all pre 66 signatures would be in doubt because they would not match Faul's signature? It would be bizarre to discover that paul never signed anything pre 66- when we all know he did!  |
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Oct 29, 2003 23:33:38 GMT
no, I'm simply saying that if *I* had gotten an autograph, in person, from Paul McCartney, in 1964, I would know it was legitimate but would have no way to prove it to you or someone else. Especially if Faul were to look at it and say it was not his signature. You could easily find one well-known expert to confirm it and one to deny it -- happens in court cases severy day. Also, many "Beatle" signatures (when the group was still together) were signed by other people. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 30, 2003 14:59:01 GMT
Yeah good point - even more confusingly, from time to time, Paul or John would sign for the entire group - they were so close as people that they could do each other's signatures reasonably convincingly.
Anyone got any fresh thoughts on the original subject??
|
|
