|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 11, 2004 22:13:22 GMT -5
I mean, to guarantee the reference images haven't been manipulated by anyone, it's best to start with candid, not posed, album photos. It's really easier to see the differences with stills. |
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Apr 11, 2004 22:14:14 GMT -5
Adjusted meaning that one or both can be shrunk, stretched, enlarged to make your point more believable. And yes this can happen on either side of the argument. Fades need to big a leap of faith on the part of the viewer in the honesty of the creator of the fades. And then, even if he's honest, he may be working with material that for non nefarious reasons has been touched up before it was published wherever. Fades.. just say no.. ;D If we can't trust fades then what can we trust? Photographs, sound files, and video can also be doctored. BTW, shrinking or enlarging pics isn't doctoring.  |
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 11, 2004 22:30:01 GMT -5
If we can't trust fades then what can we trust? Photographs, sound files, and video can also be doctored. We can trust our eyes and ears when looking at and listening to reference source material. I can't view those interview clips and not see/hear two different people. It is doctoring if the stretching/shrinking doesn't preserve the original aspect ratio. Some of the animations from that page appeared to stretch the width of Faul's face slightly. |
|
madtitan125
For Sale 
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Apr 11, 2004 22:31:30 GMT -5
This is not like some complicated puzzle we're trying to put together!
Look at the photos. Could these two men possibly be one and the same?
As far as figuring out timelines, rationales, motivations, etc., yes, it is a complicated puzzle.
The basic premise, however, is obvious:
these two guys aren't the same!
|
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Apr 11, 2004 22:38:19 GMT -5
We can trust our eyes and ears when looking at and listening to reference source material. I can't view those interview clips and not see/hear two different people. We can't always trust our ears or eyes. How about optical illusions? It is doctoring if the stretching/shrinking doesn't preserve the original aspect ratio. Some of the animations from that page appeared to stretch the width of Faul's face slightly. Stretching IS doctoring. Shrinking or enlarging is not. |
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 11, 2004 22:40:59 GMT -5
This is not like some complicated puzzle we're trying to put together! Look at the photos. Could these two men possibly be one and the same? As far as figuring out timelines, rationales, motivations, etc., yes, it is a complicated puzzle. The basic premise, however, is obvious: these two guys aren't the same! Yes, the change in PFaul's voice pitch and accent from 1966 to '67 is enough to prove a replacement IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 11, 2004 22:43:01 GMT -5
Well, appaently it isn't. I mean nodisrespect, but I played on a good stereo samples of "Paul" to "Bill" etc. All the several people ackowledged they heard a difference. This was immediately followed by:
Well, his voice just changed. It matured.
It got tired from touring.
He oversang.
He wasn't warmed up that day on that take.
He took voice lessons.
He got vocal nodes.
They must have fixed his vocal nodes.
Drugs. Drugs did it. Didn't you read? All that LSD and popt smokin made their vocal cords just change up on them.
It was a different mixing board for that record.
They changed audio enginneers.
Paul asked for a different microphone on this song.
He was disguising his voice again, like he did on "Lady Madonna."
It's a bad mix.
He was hoarse from the night before.
He wanted to sound more American, more urban.
THe microphone is further away from his mouth.
He stopped singing thru his nose.
He started singing through his nose.
He had nasal surgery that made him sing through his nose.
The original master was EQ'ed rather badly.
The jump from monaural to stereo gave the voices new luster.
It won't be believed. I think "billyshears" was right.............
Well, for at least the next couple of decades, anyway. So, for now, they must remain the same man. I think we just have to go with that.
There it is. And I strongly lean toward PWR. Like 99%.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Apr 11, 2004 22:47:46 GMT -5
Yes, the change in PFaul's voice pitch and accent from 1966 to '67 is enough to prove a replacement IMO. How do we know that the '67 voice wasn't doctored? |
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 11, 2004 22:53:16 GMT -5
We can't always trust our ears or eyes. How about optical illusions? I suggest you download JoJo's interview comparison video, if you haven't already, and watch and listen carefully. Notice how PFaul's voice, looks and mannerisms all changed in less than one year. That's all the proof I need. |
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 11, 2004 23:06:03 GMT -5
Well, appaently it isn't. I mean nodisrespect, but I played on a good stereo samples of "Paul" to "Bill" etc. All the several people ackowledged they heard a difference. This was immediately followed by: Well, his voice just changed. It matured. It got tired from touring. He oversang. He wasn't warmed up that day on that take. He took voice lessons. He got vocal nodes. They must have fixed his vocal nodes. Drugs. Drugs did it. Didn't you read? All that LSD and popt smokin made their vocal cords just change up on them. It was a different mixing board for that record. They changed audio enginneers. Paul asked for a different microphone on this song. He was disguising his voice again, like he did on "Lady Madonna." It's a bad mix. He was hoarse from the night before. He wanted to sound more American, more urban. THe microphone is further away from his mouth. He stopped singing thru his nose. He started singing through his nose. He had nasal surgery that made him sing through his nose. The original master was EQ'ed rather badly. The jump from monaural to stereo gave the voices new luster. It won't be believed. I think "billyshears" was right............. Well, for at least the next couple of decades, anyway. So, for now, they must remain the same man. I think we just have to go with that. There it is. And I strongly lean toward PWR. Like 99%. I was talking about PFaul's live speaking voice changing, not his recorded singing voice. That's more complicated because of the probability of impersonators and/or studio trickery on the early Faul Beatle records. Clearly PFaul's speaking voice-pitch went higher and he lost some of his Liverpudlian accent post-'66. Yet Faul's speaking voice from 2000+ sounds remarkably similar to his '67 one. We can't blame the LSD because the Beatles had all taken it prior to (and probably during) their last tour. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 11, 2004 23:31:47 GMT -5
I agree- I think his base level speaking pitch is higher than pre'67. That is rae. And it seems to have stayed the same timbre since 67.
I agree. I hear that. But its not me that made those reasons-----those are once I made mental note of. Several came from one very impassioned female fan. She remembers the era. She will not have any of this PID-60IF-Faul business. (Of course, there are glaring problems with 60IF) It infuriates her to a very long passionate defense. We argued about it for 3 hours one day. She almost accepted it---she left me in tears. I saw her the next day she had worked it all out in her mind how it was all manufactured by jealous, obsessed people who wanted his money etc and that I had fallen prey to many thousand cleverly prepared photos and samples. I have known her for 25 years so we are still on good terms, but I finally just told her I had been misled and dropped it, to keep the peace at work. There are MANY people out there that will have NONE of this.
If Macca got on TV and said, "I'm a perfected, time invested career double supplied by high level offices for 38 years for the purpose of National Security", etc., it would appear in the newspaper the next day as Sir Paul's little joke. Can you imagine?
T H E U S A T O D A Y Morning Edition
"M C C A R T N E Y P U L L S O U R L E G A G A I N!"
"The venerable rockstar Sir Paul McCartney had us all on for a good jolly laugh again last night when he alluded to the old forgotten hoax from 1969 blah-blah"
He could probably paint half the picture and 99.37% of the audience would take it as a monologue, a sketch, an improv moment.
I used to think that it was, if it were true, something that was hidden and could not be revealed.
Now, I am starting to see it as something that simply will not be believed.
Now, I don't thnk Macca should stand on the balcony and do that; I am just illustrating a dynamic I think is overlooked-----as a "secret", its a "baby" that almost nobody wants.
Save for us; the few, the dedicated, the strange, the quacking, the eccentric, who visit the PID orphanage every day...........
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 12, 2004 12:41:45 GMT -5
Dr Robert, [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Good-Post[1].gif"] I've told a few people in the real world about this, one friend believes just as I do, after viewing some videos and other stuff I have stashed away. Also, a couple of family members who I knew wouldn't say i was nuts or be upset, but they really are disinterested for the most part. Occasionally I'll test the waters, saying hey ever heard about that PID rumor, what do you think? And then I'll say there are those who still believe it's true, or that he was replaced. Most get a "look", like they just tasted castor oil or something.. ;D Needless to say it's time to change the subject. So true, but what does that say about... well about people in general? Let's have a hypothetical situation where there is no choice for a reasonable person with average common sense and intelligence to take it as fact. (indulge me here) Such people would be in a great deal of pain that would have to be faced, because there's a whole lot more involved here to face up to, and deep down they know it. I'm nobody's fool, no one could fool me they might say. Facing this as an undeniable fact would make them feel vulnerable in a way they never did before. And, the people like your friend can see that pain coming a mile away, and no thanks, but delivery refused! Yeah, what is with us anyway??  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 13, 2004 4:58:43 GMT -5
JoJo said: what is WITH us anyway?
I understand your colloquial phrasing. I ask the same thing. I have NO answer of course.
But, it makes me think, by a stretch, "Who is with us", or just 'What is with us, and what might be AGAINST us?"
But, I don't feel like anything is AGAINST us.
And maybe someone or something is for us.
Maybe someone is with us (who understands.)
Maybe "what" is with us is really sincere concern---not totally proven maybe, but more on track now? Maybe not.
I think 60IF got way off track and went into a "carreen" down the mountainside, as it were. People weren't totally with it, and it ( as a "document" wasn't totally with it, either. Sorry to SK or PB I mean not to offend, but really, things went into a spiral that had to wind down, at some point. Confusion, misinformation, blatantly outrageous claims began to multiply. And then it became a venomous spouting match. Hot emotions and rash choices were "with" us then.
Hopefully, "reason" and "prudence" are with us now.
|
|
madtitan125
For Sale
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Apr 13, 2004 13:57:43 GMT -5
So, that's what happened at 60if!
I used to post there, but really never gave the "document" (is there one?) much thought.
The idea of a document sounded plausible enough, but I guess I wasn't paying enough attention to get offended when everyone decided it wasn't real.
Missed out on the "Confusion, misinformation, blatantly outrageous claims''and the "venomous spouting match".
Lucky me, huh?
DoctorRobert, what was your user name on the other board?
If someone would, for curiosity's sake, please explain to me briefly how everyone here determined the 60if document wasn't real?
Is TKIN actually Sun King? Did I read somewhere on this board he claimed Sun King wasn't actually one person, but a team?
I know this is old news to most of you, but if someone could fill me in...? Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 13, 2004 14:35:36 GMT -5
Rather not get into a long discussion about that again, it was covered at the intermediate board that preceded this one. I'll PM you with the relevant links, ok? |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 13, 2004 20:07:42 GMT -5
Yes, madtitan, JoJo can do the best job at explaining what all happened. Kinda complicated---but he's right and can steer you at the imtermediate board. It chronicles what happenned. I was "Perplexed" at that place, and I think I still am............ [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Dunno2[1].gif"] |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 13, 2004 20:46:02 GMT -5
Well, appaently it isn't. I mean nodisrespect, but I played on a good stereo samples of "Paul" to "Bill" etc. All the several people ackowledged they heard a difference. This was immediately followed by: ETC. It won't be believed. I think "billyshears" was right............. Well, for at least the next couple of decades, anyway. So, for now, they must remain the same man. I think we just have to go with that. There it is. And I strongly lean toward PWR. Like 99%. Well, how about, uh, well, four decades, and, uh, 83%? Two hundred and fifty years, and even-steven? Let's switch to canasta. |
|
