|
Post by BillyJones on Jun 24, 2004 16:38:28 GMT
All kidding aside, I hope that you're not either of those people. They both have done pretty hurtful things to the people on this board. The moderators here might seem to be a little heavy handed. However, it must be understood that the burden of proving this is up to us. It's not an easy task at all. The moderators on the Nothing Is Real board are more heavy handed than the moderators here! I truly feel that we should put our energy into finding out the truth concerning this situation. Infighting between the people who are trying to prove that Paul died & was replaced is just playing into Faul's hands. It's so much easier for him to discredit us if we're divided against each other! Just IMHO of course
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Jun 24, 2004 18:15:05 GMT
I assure you I am not...whether you believe me is up to you...but I think my wording & syntax gives enough clues that I am neither party.
As long as people are civil and respectful there HAS to be debate in regard to any controversy -- especially something as huge as saying somebody was killed and replaced with an imposter. I came here wanting to believe but I am not so naive as to accept everything posted in an anonymous forum as fact...and the more I started looking into allegations and "evidence", the more I started to ask questions. When somebody reacts angrily to questioning, who looks like they have something to hide?
A serious question for a moment: What do you hope to accomplish with this forum/investigation? Assuming nobody here is positioning to make money somehow, I assume it is to prove without a doubt that Paul was replaced, right? I say look at WMWY and myself (and any other "fence sitters") as practice for the war ahead. The questions myself and others ask are softballs compared to what kind of questioning you will certainly face if you choose to ever confront Macca & Co with your evidence. I accept that you know for fact that PWR -- so you need to accept that I am not so sure. I think we can co-exist provided neither side attacks the other...I mean, who knows: maybe you'll find something new to convinve me? Then again, maybe I can point out flaws in your arguments that eliminate much of the fringe "evidence". But banning or trashing people for an opposing viewpoint is suspicious at best, wouldn't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Jun 24, 2004 18:52:57 GMT
...and let me just add that I don't buy the "you're cluttering up the message board and sabotaging the investigation" line in regard to opposing viewpoints. Blind faith in the 60IF document and posting images on the web is not an "investigation" -- that is a bizarre PID club. If that is what "we" are sabotaging then maybe you need to be sabotaged, at least until you bring something more substantial to the table. Afterall, if you're wrong it is not fair (and potentially libel) to Mr McCartney. Otherwise drop the veil of "science" and admit this forum is nothing more than a place to follow SK and post strange-looking Paul photos. Once you do that I think much of the "bad" element you refer to will leave. But as long as this is "scientific research" you simply have to allow questioning and contrary evidence...and those of us on the fringe that perceive errors will continue to point them out.
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Jun 24, 2004 19:03:05 GMT
Instead of ripping apart what we say, why don't you give us some ideas concerning what evidence IS incontrovertible? I don't approve of the way S.K. treats people with opposing viewpoints. I'm beginning to find that it is the believers that Macca & James Paul are one & the same who get nasty in very personal ways! I don't approve of how either side is behaving right now! Paul is dead now many years. His body is most likely destroyed. We are doing our best with what we have. We have NOT attacked Macca in any way. He's going about his daily life without giving us a passing thought. I can't speak for the others, only myself. I feel that it would do Macca good to unburden himself. I for one would bear no animosity towards him for doing so. I would accept what he says with great relief. Then, I can go on with MY life. Believe me, this is no fun for me. I am typing this 1 handed with a very sick little girl in my other arm!
|
|
|
Post by Delta on Jun 24, 2004 19:24:23 GMT
A serious question for a moment: What do you hope to accomplish with this forum/investigation? Assuming nobody here is positioning to make money somehow, I assume it is to prove without a doubt that Paul was replaced, right? I say look at WMWY and myself (and any other "fence sitters") as practice for the war ahead. The questions myself and others ask are softballs compared to what kind of questioning you will certainly face if you choose to ever confront Macca & Co with your evidence. I accept that you know for fact that PWR -- so you need to accept that I am not so sure. I think we can co-exist provided neither side attacks the other...I mean, who knows: maybe you'll find something new to convinve me? Then again, maybe I can point out flaws in your arguments that eliminate much of the fringe "evidence". But banning or trashing people for an opposing viewpoint is suspicious at best, wouldn't you agree? i think i have to admit that i agree. even the question "where is all this going to" i consider a valid one (i asked that one myself some months ago). for me personally this board shook up a lot of things. i think i see a lot of things that happened in the past and are happening now in the world around us in a completely different, but clearer light right now. this board opened up a wealth of knowledge i would've never (well, never say never) got in touch with otherwise. what i'm trying to say, is that if this board won't accomplish its "ultimate goal", then my wish is that at least it will make people think for themselves and make up their own minds. i won't let people tell me what to think. likewise, i try to avoid forcing my views onto others.
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Jun 24, 2004 19:37:58 GMT
Other then the usual stuff (fingerprint comparisons, DNA, etc) I wish we could hear more from people who have worked with or for Macca pre and post 1966. There were a couple credible posters a few months back with amazing stories that actually SUPPORT your opinion of a switch. I'd also like more info on the 60IF document. There are aspects of the "official" 60-IF story that have already been shown to be false ("mysterious vocal impersonator" is a photo of Neil Aspinal for example)
There is only so much you can do with photo comparisons. New ones everyday don't add much to the evidence and only give the appearance of nothing more to say. There should be much more to say.
...and thanks fopr understanding wher I'm coming from Delta...I agree we can all get along and shouldn't focus on "changing" anyone's POV. Let them figure out for themselves based on ALL the evidence -- pro and con.
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Jun 25, 2004 13:27:15 GMT
I'm going to try to resolve this dilemna. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Jun 25, 2004 13:48:10 GMT
The only way this will be solved is for us to work together. If someone disagrees, fine, we don't need to rip them to shreds. Also, if new posters come aboard we should try to answer their questions even though it seems we have done so for others hundreds of times. BJ is working on the dilemna.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Jun 25, 2004 13:59:24 GMT
Other then the usual stuff (fingerprint comparisons, DNA, etc) I wish we could hear more from people who have worked with or for Macca pre and post 1966. There were a couple credible posters a few months back with amazing stories that actually SUPPORT your opinion of a switch. I'd also like more info on the 60IF document. There are aspects of the "official" 60-IF story that have already been shown to be false ("mysterious vocal impersonator" is a photo of Neil Aspinal for example) Yes, all the world knew before 60IF that Neil Aspinall was the first Paul's voice imitator. That proves that 60IF is not true because it HAD to tell: "The FAMOUS Paul's voice imitator: Neil Aspinall" You are perfectly right Silverbeatle as always. FYI Recently Olivia Harrison called Neil: "The mysterious Neil Aspinall" playing with 60IF statements... Silverbeatle says that photo comparisons are NOT valid people! Police offices of all the world are alerted: "Burn your archives: they are absolutely not useful and have no legal value"
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Jun 25, 2004 16:07:00 GMT
MASTERPIECE ;D Not SilverBeatle...Gary Patterson & a member of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation who had trained in forensics at the world famous "Body Farm" in Knoxville, Tennessee said they are not valid: *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." Photos are acceptable for basic I.D. purposes -- but they are not FULL LEGAL VALUE when trying to apply them to forensic analysis. That is a fact. But I will give you proper credit for some great photo fades...you are very talented in that regard. Just don't try to correlate the fades to forensic science. It does not apply for the reasons stated above.
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Jun 26, 2004 4:17:37 GMT
I know I'm a little late with this, but it appears voice comparisons (aural spectrographs) are admissible in some courts. They are never rejected for unreliability when peformed by a trained technician, but for other reasons which you can read about on the provided link. There's a wealth of Paul recordings to choose from, as well as Faul. This could be done so easily. And this this is only one method. The interested may want to read this even though it's a lot of material. What the subjects sound like doesn't really matter. It's the visual representations of the voices that count. I think. Read it pretty fast. www.owlinvestigations.com/forensic_articles/aural_spectrographic/fulltext.html
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Jun 26, 2004 7:56:01 GMT
|
|
SAPA
Contributor
Posts: 54
|
Post by SAPA on Jun 26, 2004 8:01:56 GMT
Love this long thread People the important years to focus here are 65-68, especially 66-67, the films and photo's say alot. I don't see how anyone can watch the RAIN or PAPERBACK WRITER video's, compared to FOOL ON THE HILL, STRAWBERRY FEILDS or HELLO GOODBYE and think they see the same man . James Paul was an amazing performer live, his bass playing was effortless. Funny to see today's paul watching his fingers while playing up the bass (at least he tries to play bass live in 1 or 2 numbers) Please don't say that its his mustache or LSD that makes him look different, we don't live iin the 1960's Within 20 years facial recognition and voice detection software will be commonplace. If he dies before he lets the truth out, his family will suffer for it. Its only a matter of time I hope he does the right thing He and Ringo should come out together (it would be safer)
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Jun 26, 2004 17:47:20 GMT
I thought you were going to link to a trial case...that was just a forum about the Big Brother TV series...still doesn't prove vaild or legal in a court room sense.
gracemer -- now we're talking! That's the type of evidence that you need -- if you could prove scientifically that his speaking voice (not singing voice) is completely different post-66/pre-66 then you would be light-years ahead in this investigation than posting more photo-fades...at least IMHO. And scientifically does not mean "I hear it...don't you?" -- I'm talking what you're talking -- aural spectrographs that can be admitted in a court of law.
As for the other replies, I'm not debating that he looks different, I'm was only reporting the findings of author Gary Patterson of this site and the photo evidence after SK recommended his book to everyone...
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Jun 26, 2004 23:21:53 GMT
SilverBeatle - I hear yah ;D So does ABBEY - she's just computerless right now COLD TURKEY HAS GOT HER ON THE RUN!!!! And she's going STONE COLD CRAZY!!!
|
|