|
Post by jerriwillmore on May 5, 2004 15:03:36 GMT -5
Around the time PID came out, a doctor at the University of Miami said that he did "sonograms" of Paul's voice and he said he thought it looked like different people. That really has me wondering. Possibly his voice just has a wide range? Were there any other tests done? If anyone here has sonogram equipment go for it! ;D
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on May 5, 2004 17:15:14 GMT -5
I don't know, i'd have to ask first the simple question, do sound prints or voice prints or whatever really prove anything? Do they hold up in a court of law as indisputable evidence? Or is more like a lie detector, helpful for pointing an investigation in a certain direction, but inadmissible?
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on May 6, 2004 15:11:59 GMT -5
Dunno....guess it's more like a lie detector. Could anyone do any more research on this?
|
|
|
Post by scatman on May 7, 2004 10:35:54 GMT -5
expertpages.com/news/voiceprint_identification.htm"Voiceprint identification can be defined as a combination of both aural (listening) and spectrographic (instrumental) comparison of one or more known voices with an unknown voice for the purpose of identification or elimination. Developed by Bell Laboratories in the late 1940s for military intelligence purposes, the modern-day forensic utilization of the technique did not start until the late 1960s following its adoption by the Michigan State Police. From 1967 until the present, more than 5,000 law enforcement related voice identification cases have been processed by certified voiceprint examiners.
Voice identification has been used in a variety of criminal cases, including murder, rape, extortion, drug smuggling, wagering-gambling investigations, political corruption, money-laundering, tax evasion, burglary, bomb threats, terrorist activities and organized crime activities. It is part of a larger forensic role known as acoustic analyses, which involves tape filtering and enhancement, tape authentication, gunshot acoustics, reconstruction of conversations and the analysis of any other questioned acoustic event."Court testimony involving aural- spectrographic voice comparison essentially started having an impact on the courts after the Tosi Study in December 1970. Since then there have been between 150 and 200 trials in local, state or federal courts. Because of a difference based on evidentiary philosophical reasons, some courts have admitted aural-spectrographic voice evidence and others have not.
...In the federal court system, we are aware of 30 trials in which the question of aural-spectrographic voice evidence was addressed. All but three admitted the evidence based on Frye or McCormick. On appeal, the Second, Fourth and Sixth Circuits held the evidence admissible, applying McCormick, while the District of Columbia did not, applying Frye. See United States v. Williams, 583 F.2d 1194 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 439 US.FYI The Henry Truby/Paul McCartney voiceprint thing was from the Nov 7th Life magazine article. www.turnmeondeadman.net/IBP/Intro.html"Life magazine sent a crew to Scotland to track Paul down and take a photo of him. Paul had taken refuge from the Beatles' legal battles at his farm in Scotland and he was not at all happy to be confronted by reporters. When the crew from Life magazine appeared on his farm, Paul became angry and doused the photographer with a bucket of water as he took pictures. The reporters quickly left and Paul, realizing that the photos would cast him in a negative light, followed after them. In exchange for the film of his outburst, Paul agreed to let the Life crew do an interview. The resulting article, which went into some detail about the supposed clues to Paul's "death", appeared as the cover story for the November 7, 1969, issue.
"The Life article even contributed to the rumor by publishing sonagrams of Paul singing "Hey Jude," which would have been recorded after Paul's death, with Paul's voice from "Yesterday." The magazine quoted Dr. Henry Truby of the University of Miami, who found them to be "suspiciously different." "Could there have been more than one 'McCartney'?", the Life article asked"
|
|
|
Post by Doc on May 7, 2004 19:04:48 GMT -5
So, there it is in 1969 with one of America's most successful "rags" publishing such as that ("could there have been more than one McCartney?") with sonogram printed etc, and it makes no change or impression of the overall belief about the rumors. Even a big-time, widely distributed publication, printing leading assertions, and supported by official looking graphs accompanied by scientific sounding jargon, didn't make a dent in McCartney's credibility.
What would it take? Short of a tell-all confessionary book written in first person, and a canvassing of appearances everywhere on TV to spill the story, which will NEVER happen, there is nothing. I am not sure that what I just said would work with the public. The public is funny in how it will react to some things. Why was this too far-out to believe in 1969?
My opinion: It is the kind of thing that is not believed. Whether or not it were true, it is not a thing that people will believe.
Is it possible that, as a general observation about individuals, that none of us are ready to accept the notion that we could, in the long term, be "fooled" into accepting a substitute? We (people in general) each think we are too shrewd, too perceptive, too acutely alert to miss the little indications, the tell-tale differences. It's an ego thing. a little bit?
Of course, the converse is likely as well. If I've gone off on a tangent thinking a person is a replacement based on my haughty notions of how preceptive I am, then if I were shown there was truly NO replacement, would I cling to my view out of ego? Would I be chagrined to admit that I had been swayed by subtle differences---of pictures of the SAME person? How hard would it be to gulp and say, CRAP! how embarrassing. My comparitive skills are not as innately sharp as I prided myself on...........I was wrong..........my interpretations were biased.................aaargh..
It's a bit of a sticky wicket.
Which is why sitting on the fence may be so attractive and, in the end, less painful. Unless it's barbed-wire, of course, which is why I always carry a tube of "Preparation H" in my back pocket.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on May 7, 2004 20:24:33 GMT -5
The Life mag article looks like a technique that is used, rather than suppress it, bring it out in the open. Then in a subtle persuasive way, simple state the obvious, here he is, alive as he was yesterday. Also you take the weakest parts of the story and dismiss those. If they meant business about investigating, why not run stills of the african safari next to Paul at the Revolver press conference. Add a little "you should be ashamed of yourself for even believing this", and back into the nice comfortable rabbit hole you go. Well we're people here too ya know.. Ok a very small tiny little group, but we didn't spring forth from creation believing Paul is dead/was replaced. We (or the believers anyway) arrived at that conclusion in our own way and at different speeds. For myself, it's all the little things that add up, and yes there are counter arguments that can easily be presented. Some points that come up are weak, such as the fades, some are speculative, such as the song clues. Nah, no biggie really. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But it's more of a comfort level I've reached, so it can't be dislodged so easy; pride is weak, an achilles heel. It's also the first step to a closed mind. It's not a belief or some quirky religion, it's just that I don't see (at this point) how it could have been any other way. It's the greatest story never told, or perhaps ever told really, if the Beatles were telling us over and over and we were deaf to what they said.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on May 7, 2004 21:16:26 GMT -5
I know. I know. I think I am at a place where I want to return to NOT believing it. I seem to be trying to not believe it. No, I have been definitely trying to disbelieve it. I have been trying to mentally switch back. Cause, I can't "see" any other way either. And yes, some people do see it, a few-----most don't. That's not likely to change, which I have come to see as a better thing, and I've explained my reasons on prior posts somewhere. Believing PID, in my experience with my associates, seems to be the same as believing in a Flat Earth (which I do not) or that there does not exist a geographic land mass we know as the State of Idaho. About PID, people think you're joshing them, or deranged, or just going through a "phase." It's easier on the ego just to keep it to yourself, as in: "Your Own Private PID."
Well, I do believe in the existence of Idaho. I don't have to keep that private. It'd be so nice for it to turn out that Paul had simply retreated to Pocatella for the potatoes.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on May 7, 2004 21:48:52 GMT -5
I know. I know. I think I am at a place where I want to return to NOT believing it. I seem to be trying to not believe it. No, I have been definitely trying to disbelieve it. I have been trying to mentally switch back. I hope you know that's the same sentance refraised 4 times. ;D And that's how I felt when I was almost 100% sure of PID. I wished I never stumbled upon Uber's site. I wished I could erase PID from my mind. At first, that was all I could think about. It was my hobby. But it got me back into the the Beatles. It might have even led me into my new phase: guitar. Who knows what'll happen next.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on May 7, 2004 23:12:38 GMT -5
Yes, the same here. I had literally prayed for something to pull me up out of my jaded, bored, burnt out state, and my burn out with music, which had been my first love growing up.
I'd gotten stale, uninterested, and feared that I would never practice again, learn a new song, listen to music, follow any styles.
Then that same week I stumbled onto the Uberkinder site.
My roommate hates the day that ever happened.
So, I listened at first to the Beatles, now I am listening to many other things. Music is coming alive to me again. So many things have been sparked anew in my empty self.
But now, as you can see, my real problem, is that I suffer from Chronic Repetitatitative Communicanicationisms. But, I never knew it until tonight. I thought that I was just being thouroughough. Oh, my god, and Heaven's to Blazes. I am stupified and stricken with the comprehension, the realization, AND the understanding of this condition, this quagmire, this state of being for the first time ever at all period, ANEW! and coming to really really REALLY see it for what it truly actually totally and for sure IS.
What am I to do; how am I to go on; by what way shall I survive?
I throw, address, hurl this quandary to my dry, laconic, passionless lump of a soul-friend roommate, rent sharer.
He say he has the answer. He is a guy of few words. He mainly just demonstrates what his opinion is, and let's you guess what was behind it. Cool, he is walking over to me right now! I ask, what is it? What's the answer? Strange, I don't get this. He is quietly bending over by the wall where the AC outlet for the computer is, and reaching for the plug
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on May 8, 2004 10:38:00 GMT -5
Hey Doctor Robert and Flaming Pie, thanks for being honest about your feelings, open, honest discussion is better than keeping it inside. I'm of the opinion that going back to the way things were, happily believing that Paul is Paul would be pretty much impossible, without some kind of amnesia drug. Can you just forget what you've seen here, at Uberkinder's and yes at the other board? Well yes I suppose, humans have a pretty strong ability to suppress without any help from anything at all, but it's always gonna be there in the back of your mind. Most people aren't going to agree or like your roommate, are going to be concerned for your well being. (that's what it sounds like, correct?) I get around that by only telling people who I think maybe will at least be somewhat open to the idea. Those that aren't well.. my uncle for example knows about this, but he also knows me well enough to know there's no use in arguing with me unless he wants to be sidelined by a 4 hour discussion where I refuse to give up.. Yes, I am that stubborn, haha! (some people might use the term "pain in the a**) ;D
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on May 8, 2004 15:58:01 GMT -5
I'm on the fence as far as PID is concerned. The voiceprint thing is the only very interesting piece of "evidence" shown so far. I wish there were other studies done on his voice (and other stars as well), is he the only one with different voiceprints? Possibly it is just because his voice has a very wide range. Maybe. If any of you has access to sonograph equipment, why not get to work!
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on May 8, 2004 19:11:41 GMT -5
....My opinion: It is the kind of thing that is not believed. Whether or not it were true, it is not a thing that people will believe..... referring to the public en masse, I think you're right. A well-known Dolly Parton impersonator performed at the grand opening of Dollywood, and fooled an audience full of fans and family when she walked onto the stage singing "Here You Come Again". Had that been " the performance" (meaning, had Dolly herself not joined the lady onstage, and announced who she was) I'm sure thousands of people would have no doubt whatsoever that they had seen Dolly perform, and no one would be able to convince them it was a "double".
|
|
|
Post by revolver on May 26, 2004 19:49:27 GMT -5
Just listening to P/Faul's speaking voices tells me they're two different people. Faul's is slightly higher in pitch and more nasal with an accent that sounds like an imitation. Paul's is lower in pitch with a more authentic sounding Liverpudlian accent.
The speaking voices are more telling than the singing since many singers lose their accents when singing.
|
|
|
Post by scatman on May 27, 2004 10:31:31 GMT -5
My opinion is voice comparisons, unless they are within 3 to 6 months apart, are of little value. Peoples voices change as they age and/or travel, and with accents sometimes dramatically. I have a good friend born and raised in the states that went off to Scotland for a little overa year and came back speaking as if he was Scottish. His accent was acquired basically via osmosis, he never intended to develop one but being in that culture caused him to change his vocal characteristics.
So...I'm suggesting a possible reasonable explanation for early Paul having a think Liverpudlian accent is that Liverpool at that point in time was where he had spent the bulk of his life. It's quite possible the Paul of later years, having travelled the world and spent many a year in different countries and less time in Liverpool, may have developed altogether new speaking characteristics.
As for voice tone, you can listen to almost any broadcaster or speaker and notice their tone deepen as they age. Some are more dramatic than others but their voices do change. A good example here in the states is Howard Stern of the radio. Whenever you hear his old shows he often sounds like he's inhaled helium compared to the deep bass he booms today.
So while voiceprinting is an interesting concept, I do think it's unrealistic for the reasoning I mentioned to compare Paul '64 to Paul '67 or later. Only realistic comparison IMHO would be Paul in August '66 to Paul in Nov '66 (or similarily close dates).
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 27, 2004 11:33:25 GMT -5
My opinion is voice comparisons, unless they are within 3 to 6 months apart, are of little value. Peoples voices change as they age and/or travel, and with accents sometimes dramatically. I have a good friend born and raised in the states that went off to Scotland for a little overa year and came back speaking as if he was Scottish. His accent was acquired basically via osmosis, he never intended to develop one but being in that culture caused him to change his vocal characteristics. So...I'm suggesting a possible reasonable explanation for early Paul having a think Liverpudlian accent is that Liverpool at that point in time was where he had spent the bulk of his life. It's quite possible the Paul of later years, having travelled the world and spent many a year in different countries and less time in Liverpool, may have developed altogether new speaking characteristics. As for voice tone, you can listen to almost any broadcaster or speaker and notice their tone deepen as they age. Some are more dramatic than others but their voices do change. A good example here in the states is Howard Stern of the radio. Whenever you hear his old shows he often sounds like he's inhaled helium compared to the deep bass he booms today. So while voiceprinting is an interesting concept, I do think it's unrealistic for the reasoning I mentioned to compare Paul '64 to Paul '67 or later. Only realistic comparison IMHO would be Paul in August '66 to Paul in Nov '66 (or similarily close dates). You're missing the point. The point is that Truby found differences in Paul's voice from the 1962-1996 period when compared to the 1967-1970 period. The normal changes in one's voice still did not produce a negative match with the technical research Truby was utilizing. Also, '62 to '66 is a greater time period than '66 to '67, obviously.
|
|
|
Post by scatman on May 27, 2004 12:00:47 GMT -5
Actually no...I was referring to the speaking voice comment that I quoted. You are talking about singing. Truby compared SINGING voices and found them "suspiciously different" but no comparison was made to SPEAKING voices. The poster mentioned speaking voices were in their opinion the key and I offered my opinion that voiceprinting for speaking voices is pretty worthless unless you use samples around the same time-frame. That's all...
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 27, 2004 12:37:22 GMT -5
I stand corrected.
I would add that Faul's speaking voice is more nasally sounding than Paul's as Revolver pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on May 27, 2004 20:14:41 GMT -5
My opinion is voice comparisons, unless they are within 3 to 6 months apart, are of little value. P/Faul's speaking voice did change in less than a year's time. We have recordings of Paul from one of the Beatles' last tour press conferences in August '66 compared to Faul's early summer LSD interview in '67. That's about nine or ten months. There is a noticeable change in vocal pitch and accent, not to mention appearance, which would be unlikely to happen in that short of a time span if they were the same person. It can't be the LSD since they were all dropping acid well before and during their last tour. Here's a tiny sample from both interviews: Paul at Beatles press conferenceFaul at LSD interview
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on May 28, 2004 5:48:29 GMT -5
Yeah the whole "drugs made his appearance/voice change drastically" thing makes no sense to me. People who make this claim must not have had a (ahem) ;D wild and crazy youth, because anyone with any experience in this matter would know that's rather silly. Heavy drug use by a band leads to one thing: No product being produced. Or at best, really substandard product, neither of which was the case.
Besides, Bill was as straight as an arrow, other than his fondness for weed. (that seemed to come later) I think being a Beatle all of a sudden was better than any drug you could imagine.
|
|
|
Post by jonna on May 28, 2004 17:02:28 GMT -5
i agree JoJo.. look at other singers or bands and you can see that drugs really don't change them that much. I find that theory absurd.. For example look at willy nelson. that man has looked and sounded exactly the same for as long as i can remember and yet he is famous for his drug use even goes as far as to brag about it..
|
|
|
Post by scatman on Jun 4, 2004 10:26:45 GMT -5
I finally got a chance to listen to the sample. The audio sample offered is only of one single word ("really") from two separate interviews. I'll readily admit they sound different but two things leave me unconvinced: 1) context and 2) inflection. It's quite possible the difference in tone in that one single word reflects the subject matter and the context to which he is replying. When discussing his drug use I'd imagine he would sound much different than if he was in more of "Beatle-public relations-mode" where he would sound much more upbeat. This is true of most any personality being interviewed. So in my opinion you need more than one word to prove that two voices are not one and the same...
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Jun 4, 2004 21:42:50 GMT -5
I finally got a chance to listen to the sample. The audio sample offered is only of one single word ("really") from two separate interviews. I'll readily admit they sound different but two things leave me unconvinced: 1) context and 2) inflection. It's quite possible the difference in tone in that one single word reflects the subject matter and the context to which he is replying. When discussing his drug use I'd imagine he would sound much different than if he was in more of "Beatle-public relations-mode" where he would sound much more upbeat. This is true of most any personality being interviewed. So in my opinion you need more than one word to prove that two voices are not one and the same... Here are some longer audio clips from JoJo's original video. They provide the context around the words I clipped. Paul at Beatles press conferenceFaul at LSD interviewI like the long pause Faul makes when saying "...and the decision was whether to tell a lie, or to uh, (long pause) tell him the truth, you know..." I wonder what was going through his mind at that point.
|
|
|
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Aug 27, 2008 1:11:24 GMT -5
From the book: Reeve, Andru J., Turn Me On, Dead Man: The Complete Story of the Paul McCartney Death Hoax, Ann Arbor: Popular Culture, Ink, 1994. Dr. Henry M. Truby of the University of Miami used samples from three Beatles songs sung by Paul McCartney ("Yesterday," "Penny Lane," and "Hey Jude") and produced three very different sonagrams. Does that mean that there were three McCartneys? "I'm not prepared to say that this is the final word," Truby told Rolling Stone Magazine, "but it's a beginning." (Reeve 69)
|
|
joejoe
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 24
|
Post by joejoe on Sept 4, 2008 0:12:54 GMT -5
My opinion is voice comparisons, unless they are within 3 to 6 months apart, are of little value. Peoples voices change as they age and/or travel, and with accents sometimes dramatically. I have a good friend born and raised in the states that went off to Scotland for a little overa year and came back speaking as if he was Scottish. His accent was acquired basically via osmosis, he never intended to develop one but being in that culture caused him to change his vocal characteristics.
Dr Truby could reportedly match an infant's cry with the adult voice. It would be interesting to compare the voices on the early records with the later recordings. We need all the evidence to reach a conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Sept 4, 2008 18:58:13 GMT -5
Some say that, but people have been convicted on voiceprints that are 20 years apart. I guess this would be a case of a "battle of the experts," if there were a viable cause of action for fraud, in this case...
|
|