|
Post by Uberkinder on Aug 19, 2003 9:46:47 GMT
First of all, their guest was not very informed. He made several inaccurate statements about rumors which he seemed to believe were FACTS, like a Nov. 9th car crash which never happened and is recorded nowhere. He stated that this DID in fact happen when it has never been confirmed. His friend's criticism of my work is laughable. It is obvious from the other people's comparisons that there is a certain margin of error wherein the photos will still match almost perfectly; that is exactly what they are there for. Any photo taken basically from a frontal angle that is not too extreme up or down will match almost perfectly. NONE of the comparisons are from the exact same angle (this would be virtually impossible to find) and yet all of them EXCEPT pre-67 Paul and post-67 "Paul" match perfectly in every detail. I went to the "forensic analyst's" site ( www.forensic-science.com ) and there are NO articles about forensic facial comparison; it is an online course which will supposedly teach you to be a CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATOR, which has nothing to do with photographic analysis after the fact; in other words, this guy was getting his product promoted in exchange for writing his "analysis". At any rate, this man is educated in GENERAL forensic science, which icludes everything from studying remains to analysing fingerprints to reliably collecting evidence. He is not nor did the guest ever claim that he is a PHOTOGRAPHIC ANALYST. This is the type of person that needs to be reviewing the comparisons. He made vague references to distortion WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN RULED OUT, and which is clearly not his line of expertise. Clearly he did not even review the evidence, he gave his stock speech about how photographs are unreliable. We have already PROVEN that the photographs are reliable. It was his task to prove they weren't, not make vague allusions in a field he knows little and possibly nothing about. His main line of expertise is CRIMESCENE ANALYSIS, which has virtually nothing to do with photographic facial comparison. And there are several reference points that are fixed in the skull that this "forensic expert" seemed to completely overlook. It is not possible to make the inside corners of your eyes become further apart or closer together. The outside coners will only move by making a very extreme expression. If the face is relaxed, the base of the nose will remain fixed (enough to reference). The arches of the bridge which compose the top of the eye socket are absolutely fixed. The distance between the ears is absolutely impossible to change, and the outline of the skull will remain fixed as well, with the jaw simply opening or closing or moving slightly in one direction or the other. These all match for everybody else; NONE of these match between Paul and Faul. He also claimed that photographic comparisons are not accepted in court. That is silly; which evidence is accepted is completely up to the judge. The fact that a jury has to decide whether it is valid or not says nothing. The jury makes the same descision about DNA evidence, which this guest claims is conclusive. Well NOT IF THE JURY SAYS IT ISN'T. They had conclusive evidence for O.J. Is this guy crazy? This guy, with his incredible library of forensic knowledge, also didn't seem to be aware that YOU CAN NOT EXTRACT DNA FROM HAIR!!!! Why do you think they compare hair strands, for fun? They are soft enamel, they contain no living cells. What an expert! He also did not address the head size comparison, which is the most conclusive piece of evidence. All in all, he simply stated some cliches about angles not being right and extreme expressions which do not apply AT ALL to the work SK and I have done. He did not take the time to actually criticize any individual comparison, and that is the giveaway. If he cannot demonstrate how the work is faulty then he doesn't need to be commenting on it. The host, Noory, was fairly open-minded and seemed almost convinced but still on the fence, but the guest had virtually no idea what he was talking about (in regards to me and SK's work and to many of the clues as well). Just another attempt (whether intentional or not) to spread the false rumors, which prevents the true story from coming out, just like the first time. At any rate, let's hope they keep the address up until tomorrow's show.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 19, 2003 9:55:57 GMT
Well done, UK.
You can pull DNA from hair if it has the follicle. Was any of Paul's hair yanked out at the root by a fan?
Any "authorized" test would be fixed from the gitgo anyway.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Aug 19, 2003 9:56:25 GMT
You should email Noory and tell him what you think!
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 19, 2003 10:08:35 GMT
I was VERY disappointed. There was a lot of time allotted for the subject, but time was wasted rambling about the car crash, etc. He (Patterson) mentioned that the Paul lookalike contest was won by the fellow who became the singer known as Keith (top ten hit with the song "98.6"). I have NEVER heard of this...Keith's real name was/is James Barry Keefer, and he first started recording (on Columbia) in 1965 (as "Keith and the Admirations") I wonder where some of his info came from...or if it's like the "November 9 car crash"
|
|
|
Post by Uberkinder on Aug 19, 2003 10:09:10 GMT
I'm going to write a very extensive rebuttle and ask both Patterson and Coast to Coast if they will kindly publish it.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 19, 2003 10:12:17 GMT
I'm going to write a very extensive rebuttle and ask both Patterson and Coast to Coast if they will kindly publish it. GOOD FOR YOU.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 19, 2003 10:16:12 GMT
I know when you post that transcript, I'll be picking apart his statements. Feel free to use anything unique that I come up with.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Aug 19, 2003 10:25:16 GMT
The winnder of the lookalike, which was in 1965, was Keith Allison.
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Aug 19, 2003 11:33:44 GMT
Andy wrote: This guy, with his incredible library of forensic knowledge, also didn't seem to be aware that YOU CAN NOT EXTRACT DNA FROM HAIR!!!! Why do you think they compare hair strands, for fun? They are soft enamel, they contain no living cells. What an expert! It's incredible, I can't stop laughing!!!! ;D ;D ;D What a "funny" expert"!!!! ;D ;D ;D Well done Andy!!!
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 19, 2003 12:11:42 GMT
I was worried it would turn out like this when i heard who the guest was. I read pattersons book a few years ago and it was laughable at best. How is it possible to have this guy as a legitimate candidate for spokesperson on PID. No-one will take him seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Aug 19, 2003 12:14:02 GMT
Maybe this is what they want Honey!!!
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 19, 2003 12:24:17 GMT
It's EXACTLY what they want to do. Discredit the whole idea !!! All we need is love & THE TRUTH !!! Chris
|
|
|
Post by joejoe on Aug 19, 2003 14:30:22 GMT
Noory said the photos were of different people. The guest said that photos on their own do not contitute forensic proof. He noted that Tara's face and Andy's face morphing with Paul's shows that this technique cannot be used for identification. You may not be able to prove two photos are positively of the same person, but you can certainly see if two people are different ! The idea that the KKK was involved in the kidnapping, and that Brian was also replaced was used to discredit the credibility of this site. Also the material showing other stars like Doris Day may have been replaced was used to portray Andy as someone who is far, far out there. The deaths of so many in the Beatle's circle was written off as the fate of people living in the fast lane. I wish Uberkinder or Sun King could have gotten on to speak for themselves. At least the link to Uberkinder's website was shown up front. Some people have gotten the chance to take a look, and think for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by bish on Aug 19, 2003 17:12:37 GMT
One thing you have got to remember above all is that Mr Patterson has an obligation to his business. Which in this case is selling books. His book the way he sees it I might add not other peoples views however true or false they are. It is in his interests to discredit everybody else who does not share his views completely.
This shows outcome apprt from the URL mention for me is simply publicity for this man however unbelievable or old his story is. A shame the media works this way. My view of this man and his book is simply that he is a bigger fraud than Mr Faul McCartney himself ( at least he is able to fool people into believing something ).
On his website he likens his book to urban legends. I dont know about you but that immediately gives the impression to me that this kind of conspiracy has the same importance as say alligators in the sewers or some over the top Mel Gibson film. If somebody wants to be taken seriously surely they want to distance themselves from the general conspiracy community that tends to go completly off track into near science fiction.
Speaking of which has anybody got a good picture of ming the merciless from flash gordon or and oldercheech marin shot, since I think we may have a perfect head match for Mr Patterson. ;D
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 19, 2003 18:40:03 GMT
Don't be dissing too hard on Mel Gibson's onspiracy Theory. There are indeed mind-controlled assassins such as Gibson's character. (Mark David Chapman, anyone?) Gibson himself is rather well-educated in the machinations of the cryptocracy.
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Aug 19, 2003 20:40:51 GMT
the link on the coast to coast website to uberkinder's site isnt working. andy, is your server down?
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 19, 2003 21:01:55 GMT
The winnder of the lookalike, which was in 1965, was Keith Allison. Didn't Patterson give this full name and claim that he is the singer, Keith??
|
|
|
Post by krysia on Aug 19, 2003 22:49:00 GMT
i think that they should have given a link to the forum. grrr.
|
|
|
Post by Snoopy on Aug 20, 2003 8:29:30 GMT
Hi folks, I'm new here. I listen to Coast To Coast AM regularly, and saw PID was the topic so I checked out the site and ended up here to give my two cents on the whole thing.
Now, even though I listen to CTC AM often, I consider myself very objective and a skeptic, but there sure are many spooky topics discussed on the show and I usually don't get persuaded about the guests' so-called "scoop news", I just enjoy it for entertainment purposes. I also listen to the show because it presents an ordinary news at a very unique perspective (in some cases, the way it should be viewed) in which very intriguing things are often revealed, such as the power grid blackout cover-up, which I do think has some weird stuff going on. Anyhow, on the PID issue, I have to say first that I'm not really into the Beattles, I mean I know of their songs when I hear them and stuff, but I know very little about the whole history behind the band. It's just that I'm from the 80's generation, the Michael Jackson era. The PID thing was so out of the blue for me, yet so intriguing to realize such rumor has been around since 1969, that I just had to check out the site. Before I reveal what I think is the truth, let me go back to why I never got caught up into the Beattles, well, the songs are nice and all, but I felt that vocals were very mediocre, especially Paul whenever I heard their songs on TV and radio, mostly post 1966 I think. I was like, this guy doesn't have a wide range, and the pitch is very uneven, and has very little bass, almost a weak voice, but I figured he's famous for a reason, so I assumed it was his song writing talent. Then after this PID revelation, and comparing sound bites, I felt my hair on the back stand up, they did sound very different. But since RA's audio quality is not the best, I downloaded a song from pre 1966, "Michelle", and another song from post 1966, "Hey Jude" and listened to them at least 5 times each very carefully. I then preceeded to listen to more songs from each era to reaffirm my decision that THE SINGING VOICES ARE IN FACT DIFFERENT! The voice from "Michelle" had far more deep bass and also had many ranges than the one from "Hey Jude" which was a llittle husky, and had no bass whatsoever, and hardly any range. I felt hypnotic when listening to "Michelle" the voice is almost like reading a poem, so emotially charged and commanding. But the voice in "Hey Jude" was more of a whispering, and shouting during the chorus, totally different singing style. I thought then maybe its just the way songs are sang differently. But most songs from pre-1966 had a voice I really felt hypnotic towards and voice range definitely had variance in tone to realize the singer was a very skillful vocalist, whereas the voice from post-1966 Paul just sounded whiny and very "noisy" to listen to and no range whatsoever, if I dare could say that. It could have been that I didn't really get into the Beattles because I was listening to the songs from post-1966 more so than the other.
Voice comparison definitely has a good case to show that those two voices came from two different person. Difference in appearance, especially the eye color difference, is almost undisputable to me, it seems.
So far, they sound different, and look different, what more should I need to justify that PID is indeed true? Well, here's where my objective mind came in to seal the deal. Let's see things very rationally, by the technique of deductive reasoning.
Q1. Did the Beattles, the most popular band in the world at the time, really needed to go along with PID gimmick just to sell more albums if Paul was alive?
A1.Rationally thinking, I would say, HELL NO. I wouldn't even bother about such bogus rumor, and I surely wouldn't sacrifice my artistic elements of the music composition just to put in hidden messages, that's just crazy.
Q2. Let's say just messing around with one album to please the masses, which could be possible, but STILL going at it 40 years and 2 members dead later? That's WAY TOO MUCH trouble to keep a prank going, unless, it's more than a prank, that PID is a FACT.
A2. PID being true does lend all the album cover clues and Paul's morphing a clear justification.
Q3. Why would the Beattles conceal the fact that Paul died in 1966? Out of fear of social hysteria and financial risks? The remaining members would tame Paul's spirit just to save their fame and fortune? Is that feasible?
A3. It's absolutely psychotic. The Beattles alone couldn't possibly pull off such a con-job, even with the help of the powers that be of the production company, this thing has to go all the way up to the government.
Q4. Why would the monarchy do such a thing?
A4. They tend to have crazy idiom about their environment, and nation. They don't think the way ordinary folks do, and using impersonators is nothing new to royalties. Having the Beattles together definitely benefits the country's economy and stature. The Beattles were worth that much trouble.
Q5. Why would the remaining Beattles put up with such deception? Why not just reveal the truth?
A5. Two Beattle members MURDURED has something to do with it. And since Paul of today is Faul, Ringo is the only remaining Beattle. Fearing what's to come, Ringo has consistently remarked about his bad memory. It seems as though the truth will remain untold and buried for eternity, unless FAUL comes out clean, not very likely.
I believe now that Paul did in fact died in 1966, and today's Paul is FAUL living another man's legacy. Logic says as so, rational thinking points as so, and the sound and looks say so.
And as I type along this post, Ringo Starr is singing on Conan O'Brien right now, spooky...
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 20, 2003 8:57:42 GMT
He noted that Tara's face and Andy's face morphing with Paul's shows that this technique cannot be used for identification........ Also the material showing other stars like Doris Day may have been replaced was used to portray Andy as someone who is far, far out there..... Sorry, but those were really mistakes.....I adviced you, Andrew... Photo comparisons ARE used by police in identikits. It's a full legal procedure. SNOOPY: [glow=red,2,300]WELCOME!!![/glow] ...and...CONGRATULATIONS!!!
|
|
|
Post by Uberkinder on Aug 20, 2003 9:16:11 GMT
I decided to take down the picture of Tara Browne and Doris Day. Maybe I'll start a seperate page about general celebrity imposters. I think we'll eventually find this goes much further and deeper.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 20, 2003 9:22:57 GMT
Andrew, your work and support are ALWAYS INCREDIBLY REMARKABLE. Thank You, My Friend!
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 20, 2003 11:08:14 GMT
;D Snoopy - welcome !!!! Andrew & Sun King, I agree... I think we need to seperate PID from the other doubles. Sun King, I sent Andy the James_ Paul_ McCartney photo to use next to Faul in his Sgt. Pepper get up on the front page of the PID website. I think that those two photos next to each other, will definitely get the attention of the newbies... BTW - if you wouldn't mind could you send me a link to that photo, hon...The James Paul McCartney one I would LOVE to use it as my symbol here - PRETTY PLEASE Love you both ;D All we need is love & THE TRUTH !!!! Chris
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 20, 2003 15:26:28 GMT
Uberkinder, I think you definitely need to keep up the Doris Day page.
"Dig It" is, for my money, the most chilling set of clues Lennon snuck in there!
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 20, 2003 18:23:54 GMT
I agree with total... Just keep it seperate... Love to all... Chris
|
|