|
|
Post by thisone on Aug 15, 2009 20:31:55 GMT -5
How about trying these two for me please Jojo?   PS, Which of these guys was "Paul" at the gig you attended recently? Neither, I'm afraid you are going to say!! |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 16, 2009 10:40:44 GMT -5
It didn't make a guess, but as i said, it's pretty poor at it, even from pics of the same year. I wouldn't get my hopes up about this program, it's only designed to save you a few typing steps, not as forensic software.
I don't know what to say to your question.. I will say it's the same guy I saw in 2005, of that I have no doubt.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisone on Aug 16, 2009 12:53:04 GMT -5
It's facial recognition software and it doesn't work. That's because there are so many "pauls" IMO.
Did you get a good close-up photo of "thingy" from your primo seat?
|
|
|
|
Post by mumrikusstarr on Aug 16, 2009 16:03:13 GMT -5
It's facial recognition software and it doesn't work. That's because there are so many "pauls" IMO. No it doesn't work because it's buggy. You can try with any celeb and you won't get any better results. |
|
|
|
Post by thisone on Aug 16, 2009 18:12:58 GMT -5
So it doesn't work!? F*ck celebs. Try it with personal photos or loved ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by 8749 on Aug 17, 2009 17:33:39 GMT -5
Face recognition software is somewhat reliable but there are so many variables in photographs and even film. You have to first of all consider age. A male can grow taller up to age twenty-five. Next, you have to consider the body angle and posture and have an exact measurement of distance. Now what is very important is the equipment used, camera, lens, and any special effects, retouching, and the time period or decade a photograph was shot. One other point, you have to have many photographs to compare and still this is not and never will be science, pseudo-science perhaps. Last of all, males not only can grow taller to age twenty-five or so, the nose and ears grow as a person ages due to the nature of cartilage. Thrown in wrinkles, cosmetic surgery, colored contacts, you can see how difficult it really is to determine for a certainty the outcome of the analysis. A couple of examples of the above would be the Rubber Soul cover, the slightly fish eye lens during a private meeting with the Maharishi with some friends in which we see elongated faces. If you look closer to the supposed photos of Jane and Paul, you will see she her height is level with Paul's eyes, remember posture, motion, distance, angles. and other reasons can change the visual aspect. The very same thing will apply to the voice. As a person ages, the voice will change over time. You add smoking cigarettes and marijuana and you add a second factor to voice change. You have all heard smoker's voices. Then we come to the recording process where you have to recognize the technology and recording techniques of the decade and times. There is mono, two track stereo, these were many times dubbed and overlaid. Early recordings and the norm and fairly common, especially Beatles' recordings overdubbed the vocals in unison or even two different band members in unison. Take into account compression and effects in general, the generations of analogue equipment going into the digital age. Analogue tape recordings even got better over time into the digital age. Something as simple as the choice of microphone and distance from the mic to the mixing board adds subtle nuances to the final mix. You blend it all together and the recorded song covers many mistakes or background noise. The best known way to do a voice analysis is interview only, then again, you have most of the above variables to contend with for an exact science of an analysis. I'll remain neutral to any PID/PIA.PWR opinion but just wanted to add some real food for thought to the mix in how any media is scrutinized to be said this is true or that is false, with any doubt. There is always going to be a reasonable doubt on either side of the issue. This is the same as with my hundred or more videos I have created using backwards lyrics and I freely admit that this is not science as well. Surely, there is a whole lot of interesting coincidences in the very least. Some take this more seriously than others and I can understand why tempers would flare up. In the end, we will all believe what we do and will have our reasons to do so. One thing is true, whatever a person thinks happened in history, there is only the future and isn't one thing anyone can do to change what has already taken place. This game is fun, in my eyes, not an intentional effort to blind someone to what is reality or our perception of reality. What this games does though is keep the legend alive and is if nothing else, the greatest marketing tool in recorded history. Speaking of history, it is being revised daily. My best argument is to say, unless you were there and witnessed history firsthand, it is all only hearsay. Most people are conditioned from birth regardless of if we think this is the case. Factors are genetics, the environment, the age in which we all lived our lives, parents or guardian's teachings, our peers, the media including the written, our schools and teachers and religion too. This is what makes us all unique and forms our opinions in our belief system. We all as people have one thing in common, we all think what we believe is the truth. Where a person errs is when they try to use power and force other people to do their will. One fault I have and we all have them, I never proofread what I write. SS, pish posh. The idea that a person can't know the truth unless he or she is personally involved in an event just doesn't hold water. I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it. We are all given senses and sensibilities to be able to function in the world. Most of us do a pretty good job of it, and that's why this old world keeps rolling along. And that's why I think with effort, we can solve the Paul mystery. |
|
|
|
Post by SS on Aug 18, 2009 1:40:12 GMT -5
8749, wangle wriggler.
First of all, I admit I may not be the best at trying to convey my thoughts and translating those thoughts into writing, for this I apologize.
There are a couple of things I wish to point out in the paragraph you chose to try and decipher. I was not speaking of truth in general but the reality of history. Truth by definition is verified fact, even then, the perception of truth is prone to error depending on the perception of what is absolute, without a doubt, facts. I didn't use the word "involved" but said "witnessed" instead. These are two totally different words in context of the meaning of the sentence in question. If you do not witness an event firsthand, you are relying on faith (at the best secondhand) what you are told happened in history to be absolute facts. I could give you almost endless examples of so-called historical events which fall under this category but will spare you because it is apparent and inconsequential to what my entire post was all about in it's entirety. My point in the paragraph is the revision of history takes place daily and over time. I will use a line from a well known song, who knows which is which and who is who.
The one positive reply to my post is you stated you respect my opinion, likewise yours as well. We all have the right to agree or disagree on any subject. Respect has to be earned and I have not posted here enough nor do people know me personally, so this is subjective at best to what I have to say. I completely disagree that most people do a very good job sensing what is actually happening in the grand scheme of things where this world is concerned.
My prediction, and this is only my educated opinion and instinctual, the mystery you are seeking the answer for is so elusive, it is like a dog chasing it's tail. The longer ideas are thrown around, the more complex a web is spun. So, in pursuit of your goal, we should try and make this fun, educational, and consider all possibilities. Every one of us has that god-like mentality from the inside looking out and see our perception of reality as the only one. Notice, I did not use the word "truth" at all, none of us have all of the answers.
One thing I did and will admit again. My speciality is not grammar and spelling and I do not proofread what I write. This is a very bad fault of mine since my mind moves much faster than my fingers and I will often times leave a word out of a sentence and not even realize it unless it is pointed out to me later.
Now, what do you think about the first three paragraphs of my initial post in this thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by 8749 on Aug 18, 2009 18:47:47 GMT -5
SS, there are about 6 usable years of Paul photographs, 3 years of recorded interviews, 4 years of recordings, 3 years of tapes and films of their concerts, 3 years of miscellaneous coverage, and 2 movies. My point is that if you see enough of the 10's of thousands of Paul photos, listen to his interviews, listen to the song tracks, and watch the movies, you should have a pretty good idea of what real Paul sounded and looked like from roughly mid-1962 to mid-1966. That's reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by SS on Aug 19, 2009 14:04:35 GMT -5
Well then, the evidence is overwhelming, it has to be reality.  |
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Sept 9, 2009 18:00:42 GMT -5
Yes please translate thank you.  |
|
|
|
Post by thetime on Sept 30, 2009 7:23:01 GMT -5
he will die on 3/10/09 nothing can prevent it
|
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Sept 30, 2009 7:30:58 GMT -5
he will die on 3/10/09 nothing can prevent it who's dying, where, and how? |
|
|
|
Post by B on Sept 30, 2009 13:04:27 GMT -5
That "news" is from YouTube poster Y0K00NO, one of the Iamaphoney associates. At her YouTube site: www.youtube.com/user/Y0K00NOshe writes: "it's going to happen oct 3 2009 - He Die If it happens we WILL tell the world. We are not accepting the bound of silence anymore." -------------------------- Presumably she means Faul, but there's no way to be sure. |
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Sept 30, 2009 17:20:38 GMT -5
That "news" is from YouTube poster Y0K00NO, one of the Iamaphoney associates. At her YouTube site: www.youtube.com/user/Y0K00NOshe writes: "it's going to happen oct 3 2009 - He Die If it happens we WILL tell the world. We are not accepting the bound of silence anymore." -------------------------- Presumably she means Faul, but there's no way to be sure. how do you know it's a "We/ she" B? |
|
|
|
Post by B on Sept 30, 2009 18:02:29 GMT -5
The "We" was her term, not mine.
I used "she" because presumably Y0K00NO is a female.
I don't know anything about this person/people.
|
|
|
|
Post by il ras on May 4, 2010 13:31:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by P(D)enny La(i)ne on May 4, 2010 15:16:49 GMT -5
As someone who speaks the language, is it any good, il ras? |
|
|
|
Post by il ras on May 4, 2010 15:43:51 GMT -5
Yes it is
Originally the service was 58 minutes long, the freelances that made it are the same who prepared the Wired article.
naturally Voyager (that is the Italian show) cut it and added some auto produced parts: the result is approx 30 minutes long.
There is some little imprecision but the most important content is represented by the interviews of the anatomopatologist and of the other forensic expert who certify that the differences in the parts that surgery or accidents cannot modify (eyes distance, ear lobes and some other) go from 5 to 15%. In a court this would be threated as an evidence.
Also the part about graphological analysis pre and post '67 is very interesting
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on May 7, 2010 21:14:46 GMT -5
Even though I probably missed some of the finer points of the discussion, after being here for all these years I didn't have a hard time following along. My translator seemed to have trouble with her rusty Italian skills, said it was delivered too fast, haha.
Anyway, looks like a good presentation of some of the key points discussed over the years, here and at TKIN. I don't remember the handwriting ever being talked about, was that in the Wired article? You know, crossing the "T" and making the "G" loop from left to right vs. right to left.. Could you sum that up il ras?
|
|
|
|
Post by il ras on May 8, 2010 1:56:46 GMT -5
Sure, JoJo.
It's something brand new added by Andriola (the freelance that is the author of this doc and of the Wired article) for this occasion. There was also a voice comparison but it was cut out in the final version (the original was approx. 30 minutes longer).
The key point of the handwriting is that some letters and the word "to" are changed, comparing the writings made before the fall of 1966 and the ones made after that period.
If you have any other question, please ask.
|
|
|
|
Post by psmith1728 on Oct 5, 2010 12:26:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by psmith1728 on Oct 7, 2010 12:42:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kopenhagen on Dec 26, 2011 16:29:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by beatlesfan284 on Jul 6, 2013 9:28:11 GMT -5
There is DEFINETELY 100% more than one Paul McCartney. About a hundred maybe. The Beatles themselves might have forgot how much. My question is, who? Who replaced JPM?!
|
|
|
|
Post by linus on Jul 6, 2013 14:38:57 GMT -5
I agree Beatlesfan284, the evidence is there and it's easy to find. But again, my question is if there are multiple Pauls, which one is “the real one”, and how can anyone tell which one it is? Could it be they’re all Fauls?
Of course pwr/piders believe all the pid stuff that is mentioned in music and interviews, but how many people here will pass this off as just a joke?
Interview of George Harrison by Dick Cavett
D “You’re only the second member of your former organization that I’ve ever met. I know John.”
G “You didn’t mean the other eight?”
D “Were there that many?”
G “There’s hundreds.”
G “something, something, the eighteenth Beatle.”
D “There was a rumor that the Beatles were not always the same person. There was a rumor the real four of you didn’t even come over on one trip.”
G “We just sent four dummies out there.”
Then Dick mentions a rumor about them being bald, to which George says, “It’s all truth.” (of course, there is video of Paul showing a bald head. And of course, there photos of Paul swimming showing a full head of hair. Were some bald and others not?)
Sure, it's couched in humor, but it's there. Make of it what one will.
Funny that IAAP never puts this in his videos.
(Or maybe he has, I’ve only seen two of his videos. And like the Wired article, were rife with errors and altered evidence. Which has been gone over before, but I can repost it, if requested.)
|
|
