|
Post by devilsadv on Jun 22, 2004 20:00:39 GMT
Oh, come on!
Judging based on one word spoken at different times with different inflections, spoken in different type surroundings (one inside, one outside) on different types of equipment is absolutely useless.
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Jun 22, 2004 20:09:53 GMT
No problem. Someone just has to listen to the interviews that James Paul made & the ones that Faul made. There has to be certain phrases that both of them used. Phrases that can be compared. Since we can't get James Paul to speak for us now, how ELSE can we prove this? You're using circular logic. If Paul is dead, the only things that we have are old interviews. It will be hard to find interviews given under very simiar circumstances to appease everyone. S.K., do you have access to all of the interviews given over the years? The ones on tape? I'm curious as to what comparing all of them will prove.
|
|
|
Post by devilsadv on Jun 22, 2004 20:32:27 GMT
There is no circular logic in what I said. I just said that such a comparison using one word in such different conditions is useless. If I recorded myself outside yelling "My house is on fire" and then inside my house saying, "I'm going to build a fire", one using mics built into the tape recorder and the other a professional mic, then compare the word "fire", they are going to sound different.
When a tape of Osama Bin Laden is received, it takes CIA analysts with the best equipment days or even weeks to make a determination if it is really Osama or an imitator. They use the whole tape and also have to compare content and the types of phrases used. Even after all of that, they can only say that there is a strong likelyhood that it is him. They can't say with certainty.
I never said that Paul had to be alive in order to make a comparison, just that it is much more complicated than comparing one word from two different interviews made under totally different conditions.
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Jun 22, 2004 21:50:48 GMT
I am a singer/guitarist so I admit I do not know much about keyboards and/or samplers...however I would bet if you asked Luciano Pavarotti or Bruce Springsteen who Kurzweil is/was, they probably would not know either...does that make them any less talented? Not comparing myself to Pavarotti or The Boss, but hopefully you get the point...not fair for you to cast aspersions on my musical abilities based on not knowing who this "Kurzweil" character is...
btw a big "thank you" to those here who understand that the questions I ask are legitimate questions not meant to rabble-rouse or demean others. I always try to be respectful and only chime in when I feel like something needs to be questioned. I've said before if this is truly a "scientific" study as is claimed, that this type of dialogue is necessary. Should only help your case if Paul is in fact dead and was replaced...
|
|
|
Post by yellowsub2 on Jun 23, 2004 7:26:17 GMT
John changed so many times his voice in his songs. But when he sung "Imagine" he had always the same voice. Why the character "Paul" changed so many times his voice singing "Yesterday"? John was brilliant, and I love everything about him, but I don't think he was a technically great singer, whereas paul/faul is/was. (you know what I mean) because of the different qualities he can get out of his voice.
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Jun 23, 2004 8:43:30 GMT
Stevie Wonder approached Kurzweill thirty years ago to crate, develop, a high quality keyboard synthesizer, one that, by employing what Kurzweill then of sound generation and synthesizing, and electronics, the "bar" could be lifted in the keyboard realms.
He did it, and the $30,000 result was an instrument heard all over Wonder's 80's recordings. This led to mass productioin of synth's, and the price droppng into the $2,000-$3,000 range for very decent mid-line, professional models. Thanks to a persistant, innovative muscian and a leader in electric sound research.
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Jun 23, 2004 8:53:54 GMT
About the oral cave--yes, any voice teacher can tell you about this.
I used to get "Scientific American" in the mail when I was in my early 20's (did me no good----way above my head.) but years ago I remember an article about "formants" and the vocal dimensions, the cord thickess, length, etc. The 4 pairs of "adductors" helper muscles that help the man's voice (women have one pair less) I have forgotten so much of this, but a search of S.A> archives would find this rich and informative article. I'll look.
Elton's voice has deepened and gotten heavier, as most all voices due in the progress of time----(there are exceptions, Jussi Bjoerling the early 20th century tenor was one)but we all still recognize his unique sound. I hear the Australia tour version live of "Goodbye Norma Jean" on the radio today (oldies/classic station) and I was thinking how much more full and darker, perhaps rougher, his voice became. All that hard singing will toughen those vocal cords. Anyway, he still sounds great, and plainly him.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Jun 23, 2004 10:17:43 GMT
Elton's voice has deepened and gotten heavier, as most all voices due in the progress of time----(there are exceptions, Jussi Bjoerling the early 20th century tenor was one)but we all still recognize his unique sound. I hear the Australia tour version live of "Goodbye Norma Jean" on the radio today (oldies/classic station) and I was thinking how much more full and darker, perhaps rougher, his voice became. All that hard singing will toughen those vocal cords. Anyway, he still sounds great, and plainly him. Wow! This IS exactly the post I was preparing as reply! With the same reference about Elton's Australia tour version live... Wow! Thank You Perplexed! "My mind reader..."
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Jun 23, 2004 10:24:54 GMT
... I've said before if this is truly a "scientific" study as is claimed, that this type of dialogue is necessary. Should only help your case if Paul is in fact dead and was replaced... Don't worry....my arguments are always science-based SilverBeatle. Ex members of this forum have just discovered a book where they have found what I've said and done is all valid (scientifically speaking). I have no problem about.....my only problem is not being of english language.....
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Jun 23, 2004 10:35:51 GMT
Q: Who is Robey Younge and why should I believe him? Q: What is a Beatle Brunch? Q: Can you provide a source to prove this info? Q: What makes any of this info credible? R: please purchase that book and find it by yourself R: " ...and...from the same interview Robey Younge continued:
"That we went as far as taking accurate photographs and measured the bridge of a person's nose, the 'previous' McCartney and the 'second' McCartney. And it was quite different. One nose was longer than the other."
...THAT makes any of this info credible....
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Jun 23, 2004 13:58:02 GMT
I happen to have an extra copy of "The Walrus was Pau" if anyone is interested. The author implies many times that certain things do not make sense. When the pavement is burning hot, "burns your feet as they touch the ground", you wouldn't be likely to go barefoot. Also Faul seems to "forget" things that should be considered important like his OPD badge.
|
|
|
Post by MMCDHoward on Jun 23, 2004 14:18:05 GMT
Don't worry....my arguments are always science-based SilverBeatle. Ex members of this forum have just discovered a book where they have found what I've said and done is all valid (scientifically speaking). I have no problem about.....my only problem is not being of english language..... I would like to point out a quote from that book: Try to not take things from the book out of context SK, it might make you seem like you're not telling the whole truth
|
|
|
Post by beatled on Jun 23, 2004 14:48:10 GMT
I hate to get in the middle of this, but this statement would be the opposite of what SK would hope is fades are showing, no? I mean, he's arguing that the dissimilarities are emphasized. The ones arguing that the similarities are emphasized, or are clear and obvious are folks over at another board. Fades are so problamatic, it's best to stay away from them. Not that anyone is playing dirty, bit since a fade can be made to illustrate either point of view, and do it convincingly, why bother?
|
|
|
Post by MMCDHoward on Jun 23, 2004 14:51:46 GMT
my point exactly, and if you can stress similarities you can do the same with dissimilarities
|
|
|
Post by beatled on Jun 23, 2004 14:58:14 GMT
Well a minor point here, the author's point seemed to be that stressing similarities was the pitfall, not the other way around. He left the question of whether dissimilarities could be forced unanswered or unaddressed unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Jun 23, 2004 15:00:11 GMT
I would like to point out a quote from that book: Try to not take things from the book out of context SK, it might make you seem like you're not telling the whole truth Don't worry tomorrow I will publish the original page....so friends will know who is using wrong those words...
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Jun 23, 2004 15:01:06 GMT
Well a minor point here, the author's point seemed to be that stressing similarities was the pitfall, not the other way around. He left the question of whether dissimilarities could fe forced unanswered or unaddressed unfortunately. EXACTLY!
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Jun 23, 2004 18:46:54 GMT
Interesting you mention R Gary Patterson's book. Did you know he dicusses 60IF and the "forensic evidence" on his website? I only bring this up because you mentioned it first: www.rgarypatterson.com/work4.htmSome highlights: I'm sure many of you have visited several websites claiming "undeniable proof that Paul is Dead." I was very impressed with the amount of time and work that went into this site. I enjoyed watching as the photos morphed into each other and I thought the argument to be very interesting. I then remembered a "strange" phone call I received late last spring asking me for an interview. The caller mentioned that any assistance that I should give him could make his work more "attractive" to a prospective publisher. I have a feeling that this"forensic" evidence was the purpose of a book proposal. It takes more expertise than reading a work on "The Forensic Analysis of the Skull" and stating your interpretations as fact. Scientific information in the hands of laymen can be misapplied. Remember what Alexander Pope said, "A little Learning is a Dangerous Thing." Theories arrived at through personal research work great in explaining episodes of "Quincy" and "Columbo" but is hardly the last word on the subject UNLESS it is in the hands of a licensed and experienced field expert. In this case, the matter achieves credibility. I have seen no evidence that anyone making these "forensic" claims is either licensed or considered an expert in the forensic field. I read the document "60IS" (sic) and quickly formed an opinion here (I'll discuss this later). I am not a forensic expert and I didn't shell out $145.00 for a copy of "The Forensic Analysis of the Skull."...However, knowing my limitations, I searched for an expert opinion in the field. In this case someone who had undergone the proper training and was employed in the proper field. Luckily, I had a contact who arranged a conversation with a member of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation who had trained in forensics at the world famous "Body Farm" in Knoxville, Tennessee. This contact was very helpful and arranged a number of contact numbers of forensic experts throughout three states. I asked for an opinion that I could post on this site that would include internet site sources for readers to make their own explorations. The text is as follows: "The resolution of the pictures is not comparison quality- different angles are not a scientific way to examine photographs especially to back up an argument. Different angles are there to give an overall view only but not for comparison. It has to theoretically be an exact of the one you are comparing it against. *Changes in muscle movements in various photographs cannot be seen with the naked eye but can change measurements if you are comparing only photographs. That is why unless you can see beneath the skin to the actual muscle-then you cannot say precisely what a facial measurement is especially using two photographs that are that dissimilar in expression for comparison. *Facial identification and reconstruction is a very complicated process which requires measurements using actual human skeletal remains not photographs. Even anthropologists have difficulty sometimes reconstructing the depth of tissue around the eyes and nose to fully determine the person's weight. This website has attempted to take photographs and apply scientific principles in forensics that are just not applied that way. *Eye color can be manipulated very easily and Paul could have contacts in or anything in those photos of eye comparison-that is a very weak argument when calling your claims forensic science. *Also with the eyes, you cannot compare photos of eyes where in one picture the person is looking in a different direction. There again, I am referring to comparison photographs used in forensics. Those photos have to be as near exact as possible. *Ear identification-which they refer to on their website has not been an accepted science. Refer to www.forensic-evidence.com. It explains a few of these principles. Holland had a case of ear id. Inspector Van der Lugt testified to the id of an individual based on ear evidence. You can find this at www.forensic-evidence.com/site/ID/IDearNews.html. It talks about the fallibility of this idea. After all characteristics that forensic scientists look for in identifying are INDIVIDUALIZING characteristics not CLASS characteristics like the antitragus, tragus, helix, helix rim, and antihelix The court just could not accept his testimony because this is not yet a clear, concise science." **The Forwarded Email from Coast to Coast** The day of the show Lisa forwarded an email from the site asking if I was "familiar" with the "new" clues. I'd like to share the email with you. I have removed the email addresses, but I have a print out of the actual email for conspiracy theorists--if needed. It appears there were some legal concerns over the "forensic" and "audio clips" and the email was received from one of the owners of the site. Here is the email and my response: EMAIL: I haven't gotten permission, so It might be better just to link to my page and I'll take the photos down if anybody complains. I think I can get away with this purely for research purposes,(sic) as I am not trying to sell a product, but it might cause you guys some problems. I believe the audio samples are legal as long as they are under 30 seconds in length, but I could be wrong about this.Well, yes you are wrong about this. Please read the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Photographs have licensing fees and restrictions. Permissions can be given BUT the subject area has to be approved by the copyright holder. There has never been a time that an audio section of thirty seconds can be used under "Fair play Copyright Law." Before 1998, the maximum time for a sample was NO more than five seconds, and even this was debatable. Audio samples have many more restrictions now. Doing the pilot of "VH1 Confidential," when we examined the "Paul is Dead Clues," VH1's legal department could not license ONE SECOND of actual Beatles' recordings. This included backward tracks which, I admit, was actually a shock to me. Now, if Viacom's VH1 can't obtain permissions what does this say about individual websites? There was no profit obtained in the viewing of the segment and the show has not been offered for video or audio release. When I asked my intellectual properties attorney, Norman Gillis, he told me "No pictures or audio unless you own the rights or have permissions." Mr. Gillis is a leading expert in this field. I suppose you could say that if you promote a website it is technically "published" and that could result in a number of legal issues. Of course, the first stage is with the receipt of a cease and desist letter. EMAIL: You might just find a few good public domain photos from '66 and '67 and do a rough side by side on your site. Be careful though, many photos of Paul appear to have been drastically altered when the "Anthology" project came around; their attempt to re-write history if you ask me.Interesting. To do this scientific comparison you randomly choose "public domain" photos from '66 and '67 and place them side by side? Don't you think that proper measurements and perspective play an important role here? According to the reply I received concerning the photos this would violate several principles of forensic science. (Refer to the above forensic statements). If photos of Paul used for the Anthology have been "drastically altered" (in your opinion) then obviously ANY photograph can be as drastically altered by picking them randomly and without regard to the proper measurement, distance and perspective. Many photos can be altered with Photoshop or any editing program. I think this hurts the new "evidence" argument significantly. I also think that any photographic evidence of this type would be dismissed in any court of law. EMAIL: I hope your guest is familiar with all the new evidence. Most of us now think the "car crash" story was actually a cover for a kidnaping that went wrong, resulting in Paul's death.Who are "us"? From what I understand about the so-called "60IS" document is that the author was George Harrison who gave "undeniable" proof of the death and replacement of Paul McCartney to his "eastern" friends who then translated all the evidence into an "eastern language" to hide the truth from publishers who would try and destroy the evidence. This "evidence" was translated into English in Italy and was to be published after George's death on the Internet on Paul's 60th birthday. Of course, George must have seen the date of his own death to make sure that he died before Paul's 60th birthday. Then again, dead men tell no tales so obviously George can make no response to this incredible theory. etc...
|
|
|
Post by yellowsub2 on Jun 24, 2004 9:43:05 GMT
Interesting you mention R Gary Patterson's book. Did you know he dicusses 60IF and the "forensic evidence" on his website? I only bring this up because you mentioned it first: www.rgarypatterson.com/work4.htmSome highlights: I'm sure many of you have visited several websites claiming "undeniable proof that Paul is Dead." I was very impressed with the amount of time and work that went into this site. I enjoyed watching as the photos morphed into each other and I thought the argument to be very interesting. I then remembered a "strange" phone call I received late last spring asking me for an interview. The caller mentioned that any assistance that I should give him could make his work more "attractive" to a prospective publisher. I have a feeling that this"forensic" evidence was the purpose of a book proposal. It takes more expertise than reading a work on "The Forensic Analysis of the Skull" and stating your interpretations as fact. Scientific information in the hands of laymen can be misapplied. Remember what Alexander Pope said, "A little Learning is a Dangerous Thing." Theories arrived at through personal research work great in explaining episodes of "Quincy" and "Columbo" but is hardly the last word on the subject UNLESS it is in the hands of a licensed and experienced field expert. In this case, the matter achieves credibility. I have seen no evidence that anyone making these "forensic" claims is either licensed or considered an expert in the forensic field. I read the document "60IS" (sic) and quickly formed an opinion here (I'll discuss this later). I am not a forensic expert and I didn't shell out $145.00 for a copy of "The Forensic Analysis of the Skull."...However, knowing my limitations, I searched for an expert opinion in the field. In this case someone who had undergone the proper training and was employed in the proper field. Luckily, I had a contact who arranged a conversation with a member of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation who had trained in forensics at the world famous "Body Farm" in Knoxville, Tennessee. This contact was very helpful and arranged a number of contact numbers of forensic experts throughout three states. I asked for an opinion that I could post on this site that would include internet site sources for readers to make their own explorations. The text is as follows: "The resolution of the pictures is not comparison quality- different angles are not a scientific way to examine photographs especially to back up an argument. Different angles are there to give an overall view only but not for comparison. It has to theoretically be an exact of the one you are comparing it against. *Changes in muscle movements in various photographs cannot be seen with the naked eye but can change measurements if you are comparing only photographs. That is why unless you can see beneath the skin to the actual muscle-then you cannot say precisely what a facial measurement is especially using two photographs that are that dissimilar in expression for comparison. *Facial identification and reconstruction is a very complicated process which requires measurements using actual human skeletal remains not photographs. Even anthropologists have difficulty sometimes reconstructing the depth of tissue around the eyes and nose to fully determine the person's weight. This website has attempted to take photographs and apply scientific principles in forensics that are just not applied that way. *Eye color can be manipulated very easily and Paul could have contacts in or anything in those photos of eye comparison-that is a very weak argument when calling your claims forensic science. *Also with the eyes, you cannot compare photos of eyes where in one picture the person is looking in a different direction. There again, I am referring to comparison photographs used in forensics. Those photos have to be as near exact as possible. *Ear identification-which they refer to on their website has not been an accepted science. Refer to www.forensic-evidence.com. It explains a few of these principles. Holland had a case of ear id. Inspector Van der Lugt testified to the id of an individual based on ear evidence. You can find this at www.forensic-evidence.com/site/ID/IDearNews.html. It talks about the fallibility of this idea. After all characteristics that forensic scientists look for in identifying are INDIVIDUALIZING characteristics not CLASS characteristics like the antitragus, tragus, helix, helix rim, and antihelix The court just could not accept his testimony because this is not yet a clear, concise science." **The Forwarded Email from Coast to Coast** The day of the show Lisa forwarded an email from the site asking if I was "familiar" with the "new" clues. I'd like to share the email with you. I have removed the email addresses, but I have a print out of the actual email for conspiracy theorists--if needed. It appears there were some legal concerns over the "forensic" and "audio clips" and the email was received from one of the owners of the site. Here is the email and my response: EMAIL: I haven't gotten permission, so It might be better just to link to my page and I'll take the photos down if anybody complains. I think I can get away with this purely for research purposes,(sic) as I am not trying to sell a product, but it might cause you guys some problems. I believe the audio samples are legal as long as they are under 30 seconds in length, but I could be wrong about this.Well, yes you are wrong about this. Please read the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Photographs have licensing fees and restrictions. Permissions can be given BUT the subject area has to be approved by the copyright holder. There has never been a time that an audio section of thirty seconds can be used under "Fair play Copyright Law." Before 1998, the maximum time for a sample was NO more than five seconds, and even this was debatable. Audio samples have many more restrictions now. Doing the pilot of "VH1 Confidential," when we examined the "Paul is Dead Clues," VH1's legal department could not license ONE SECOND of actual Beatles' recordings. This included backward tracks which, I admit, was actually a shock to me. Now, if Viacom's VH1 can't obtain permissions what does this say about individual websites? There was no profit obtained in the viewing of the segment and the show has not been offered for video or audio release. When I asked my intellectual properties attorney, Norman Gillis, he told me "No pictures or audio unless you own the rights or have permissions." Mr. Gillis is a leading expert in this field. I suppose you could say that if you promote a website it is technically "published" and that could result in a number of legal issues. Of course, the first stage is with the receipt of a cease and desist letter. EMAIL: You might just find a few good public domain photos from '66 and '67 and do a rough side by side on your site. Be careful though, many photos of Paul appear to have been drastically altered when the "Anthology" project came around; their attempt to re-write history if you ask me.Interesting. To do this scientific comparison you randomly choose "public domain" photos from '66 and '67 and place them side by side? Don't you think that proper measurements and perspective play an important role here? According to the reply I received concerning the photos this would violate several principles of forensic science. (Refer to the above forensic statements). If photos of Paul used for the Anthology have been "drastically altered" (in your opinion) then obviously ANY photograph can be as drastically altered by picking them randomly and without regard to the proper measurement, distance and perspective. Many photos can be altered with Photoshop or any editing program. I think this hurts the new "evidence" argument significantly. I also think that any photographic evidence of this type would be dismissed in any court of law. EMAIL: I hope your guest is familiar with all the new evidence. Most of us now think the "car crash" story was actually a cover for a kidnaping that went wrong, resulting in Paul's death.Who are "us"? From what I understand about the so-called "60IS" document is that the author was George Harrison who gave "undeniable" proof of the death and replacement of Paul McCartney to his "eastern" friends who then translated all the evidence into an "eastern language" to hide the truth from publishers who would try and destroy the evidence. This "evidence" was translated into English in Italy and was to be published after George's death on the Internet on Paul's 60th birthday. Of course, George must have seen the date of his own death to make sure that he died before Paul's 60th birthday. Then again, dead men tell no tales so obviously George can make no response to this incredible theory. etc... WOW! C'mon, tell us what his opinion of the 60IF document is! ;D I dare you ;D !
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Jun 24, 2004 13:49:00 GMT
YSM2 - anyone can ask questions. It's when people use their opinions to try to beat us down, that feathers get ruffled. SilverBeatle - just out of curiosity, were you Long John prior to that fiasco last January. OOH, now I asked a question ;D
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Jun 24, 2004 15:09:01 GMT
Hi Billy Jay...no, I'm not the same person as Long John. If you check my profile I've been here since 10/30/03.
Hopefully the "use their opinions to beat us down" comment was not directed at me. I'm not trying to beat anyone down...on the contrary, I really only hope to keep everyone on track. When I see something like the Patterson book being touted, I think it's important (however hurtful it may feel) to point out that the author does not agree with the evidence. I did no "research" other than Google his name and visit his website. My feeling is nipping it in the bud now prevents more embarassment down the road.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Jun 24, 2004 15:13:53 GMT
Ok, but aren't you "The Bug" on the macca4ever board SilverBeatle?
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Jun 24, 2004 15:20:13 GMT
No...I'm not the bug either...do I get a prize if a third person guesses wrong? ;D Guys/gals I really wish you wouldn't look at me as a threat. I enjoy the PID/PWR discussion...I only chime in when I have information that I think is important to weigh in the discussion. I did not bring up the Patterson book...I only commented when it was being touted as a must-read.
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Jun 24, 2004 15:29:20 GMT
Well, I am glad to know that you are not The Long John Bug.
Hey, there is one for BJ: Instead of The Beatles and the Beatles for comparison, you could use The Beatles and the bugs or the Beatles and one bug.
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Jun 24, 2004 16:32:54 GMT
;D ;D ;D
|
|