|
Post by KHAN on Aug 6, 2009 10:46:36 GMT -5
Diablo spent a few minutes examining the Italian magazine WIRED's recent McCartney article and found some interesting connections to a certain someone who is well known around these parts. Science? Yeah sure.
|
|
|
Post by maxwell edison on Aug 6, 2009 11:10:24 GMT -5
So, that article was a fraud from the beginning. The supposedly independent scientific analysis was actually not independent or scientific. They did not get authentic original photographs to study. They used photo images from Sun King's PID website. And I am sure they had to get permission, and had to know the source from where they came.
So the article was biased towards PID from the beginning. The question is, who was really behind this article. Was Sun King and or other PID people involved in producing that article?
Very shady. The PID people are behind the article, then, without giving the whole story, use it to claim that science has proven them correct.
|
|
|
Post by KHAN on Aug 6, 2009 12:03:33 GMT -5
There is clearly a differentiation to be made between "Science" and "Internet Science".
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 6, 2009 12:28:12 GMT -5
No science needed to see the obvious replacement, just a good eye-brain connection clear of interference.
|
|
|
Post by 8749 on Aug 6, 2009 17:55:07 GMT -5
Like I said in the Finally!!!!!!! thread, we need a literal translation and information about the authors because if the article gets widely discussed, everything will be done to discredit the authors and their research. I looked into the Truby-Tossi voice analysis research that was used to compare songs, and just slightly before the PID controversy hit, the peer-reviewed magazines that study audio issues started publishing very emotional and unprofessional criticisms of Truby and Tossi and their research.
|
|
|
Post by KHAN on Aug 6, 2009 20:39:26 GMT -5
Like I said in the Finally!!!!!!! thread, Like I said in this thread. 1a: The article is from an Italian magazine. 1b: Sun King is from Italy. 1c: The images from the article were taken directly from Sun King's site. One And One And One Is ThreeI'm not saying this has any bearing on PID/PWR/PIA being true whatsoever. All I am saying is that this article must be dismissed because it is a farce.
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Aug 7, 2009 4:22:12 GMT -5
You're aware that there was more than one photograph taken at the Sgt. Pepper shoot yes?
|
|
|
Post by mumrikusstarr on Aug 7, 2009 6:11:23 GMT -5
There's no need defending the article now. The "scientists" took pictures and comps. from SunKings site and as we all know (I hope) SunKing's comps. aren't the best around. Now this doesn't make PID less credible or PIA more believable, it just shows (again) that the article isn't real scientific work REAL scientific work needs hundreds of test studies of comparing pictures of "Paul" to pictures of "Paul" and hundreds of test studies comparing pictures of "Faul" to pictures of "Faul" It also needs to be peer reviewed, and this article was not. Sorry, but the article doesn't hold up, it's been proven. Use your brains and realise that it's not viable.
|
|
|
Post by The Bug on Aug 7, 2009 10:49:36 GMT -5
Agreed.
Yes, this article was a fraud. Real scientists would have acquired hundreds of original authentic photographs from archives. They would not have pulled just a few images from a PID website. The fact that the photos came from a site pushing the idea that Paul is dead would automatically taint their work. Also, they would have no control. There would be no assurance that these images had not been altered using any one of the number of computer softwares available. Thus, it is not in any way scientific proof of PID. It was biased toward PID from the start.
At the same time, the fact that this one article is a fraud in no way proves PIA, either. Also, in no way should it negatively taint anyone here at NIR, other than any person who might have been involved in producing the article, and there is no proof of such involvement.
|
|
|
Post by faulguy on Aug 7, 2009 13:43:32 GMT -5
No science needed to see the obvious replacement, just a good eye-brain connection clear of interference. I agree, Paul was replaced permanently - It ain't rocket science! This article is a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 7, 2009 19:52:54 GMT -5
It may be a step in the right direction as far as opening a few more eyes, but I've also gotta agree with Khan's post on this one, interesting find there, Khan. Like I said in the Finally!!!!!!! thread, Like I said in this thread. 1a: The article is from an Italian magazine. 1b: Sun King is from Italy. 1c: The images from the article were taken directly from Sun King's site. One And One And One Is ThreeI'm not saying this has any bearing on PID/PWR/PIA being true whatsoever. All I am saying is that this article must be dismissed because it is a farce.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Aug 7, 2009 22:29:38 GMT -5
You're right! Yellow pepper (from the LP) was doctored to look more like Paul. Red pepper (from the CD) had the correct proportions that match most of Paul's later photos, so we know it wasn't doctored. What you're comparing up there, is apples and oranges. I believe (not sure) the B/W one is from one of the out-takes that didn't make the album. Either that or they adjusted it to match Paul's correct proportions based on other photos. Without a good translation, it's hard to tell.
|
|
|
Post by mumrikusstarr on Aug 8, 2009 5:11:33 GMT -5
You're right! Yellow pepper (from the LP) was doctored to look more like Paul. Red pepper (from the CD) had the correct proportions that match most of Paul's later photos, so we know it wasn't doctored. What you're comparing up there, is apples and oranges. I believe (not sure) the B/W one is from one of the out-takes that didn't make the album. Either that or they adjusted it to match Paul's correct proportions based on other photos. Without a good translation, it's hard to tell. The b/w picture is the EXACT same picture, only stretched. And again you bring up the doctoring of "Faul" pictures without having any proof of it. and WHEN did the red pepper pic match up with ANYTHING? Maybe in Sunkings comps. (and we all know what a great fademaker SK is ) but besides that, I haven't seen it match up. LC proved that the red pepper pic was stretched to fit. also... Well, if thay did that, that would make the article even less believable. You can't just stretch a photo to what you BELIEVE was the correct proportions.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Aug 8, 2009 7:51:05 GMT -5
You're right! Yellow pepper (from the LP) was doctored to look more like Paul. Red pepper (from the CD) had the correct proportions that match most of Paul's later photos, so we know it wasn't doctored. What you're comparing up there, is apples and oranges. I believe (not sure) the B/W one is from one of the out-takes that didn't make the album. Either that or they adjusted it to match Paul's correct proportions based on other photos. Without a good translation, it's hard to tell. Then why didn't they just use the red pepper pic? Like Mumrikusstarr said, it's the exact same pic, and stretching it to what they believe is the correct proportion is incredibly unprofessional and unscientific.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 8, 2009 7:57:03 GMT -5
There's tons of good vintage pics out there that clearly show that we're dealing with at least 2 different men here, so for the source material for this article to come entirely from Sunking's site is very unprofessional, unscientific & lazy.....imo
|
|
|
Post by mumrikusstarr on Aug 8, 2009 9:44:16 GMT -5
There's tons of good vintage pics out there that clearly show that we're dealing with at least 2 different men here, so for the source material for this article to come entirely from Sunking's site is very unprofessional, unscientific & lazy.....imo Finally someone from the PID side that realises that this article is a load of dookey
|
|
|
Post by B on Aug 8, 2009 12:55:38 GMT -5
Sun King, right again!
|
|
|
Post by thisone on Aug 8, 2009 15:51:39 GMT -5
Ok, no answers! Then which one is "Billy"?
Why will people not deal with this, I don't know!
|
|
|
Post by Jai Guru Deva on Aug 8, 2009 17:12:17 GMT -5
I think biometrics is still a valid science, but this doesn't look good. Clearly, better scientific investigation of PID/PWR, independent of Sun King's site and around the internet, needs to be researched.
|
|
|
Post by mumrikusstarr on Aug 9, 2009 12:44:59 GMT -5
I think biometrics is still a valid science, but this doesn't look good. Clearly, better scientific investigation of PID/PWR, independent of Sun King's site and around the internet, needs to be researched. Yes, and use more than 5-6 pictures. Hundreds of tests need to be done. But I don't think an independent internet study is the way to go, It still needs to be peer review. Without that, it can't be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Aug 11, 2009 21:27:38 GMT -5
No science needed to see the obvious replacement, just a good eye-brain connection clear of interference. I wonder if we should have a bio-metric scan done on a couple items in question. The physical characteristics are really similar. -basically the same shape. (some might say toroidal) They're the same color. (happen to be red) Both are edible. Both can be made into juice. Both, I believe, are fruits. Both can be used in a salad. So MANY similarities. Do they have portable scanners so when I go to the store I won't get confused? Some might need one cause they can't differentiate if things happen to be similar. I'm all for evidence and evidence weighed right. And all of us probably didn't notice the difference at one time. But eyesbleed's point is on the money. Experts and expert analysis is great, but have some been reduced to the point (in perceptive ability) where ONLY a bio-scan and expert testimony will keep one from making a BLA instead of a BLT?
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Aug 11, 2009 21:30:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Aug 12, 2009 2:51:56 GMT -5
^ nice GIF, but what about these? A little more elaborated...
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Aug 12, 2009 9:32:46 GMT -5
<shrugs> The individuals quoted in the article -- Carlessi and Gavazzeni -- seem to be real people with genuine credentials. Is there any reason to suppose that they are not?
And biometrics is -- or may be -- a valid science. The article says that Carlessi and Gavazzeni initially tried to debunk PID/PWR and found that they were unable to. They could have been drawn to or had their attention directed to Sun King's web page as an example of something to discredit.
Sun King claimed to be 100% sure of his conclusions and declared that he had "proved" his underlying point. Carlessi and Gavazzeni stop short of that. And they don't get into the nonsense about Neil Aspinall assuming McCartney's role or Don Knotts assuming the role of Brian Epstein.
I agree that if there is a science to this, more comparisons should be done and this analysis should be subjected to peer review. I agree that the opinions of two people fall far short of any sort of scientific consensus.
But none of this is any reason to disregard this article entirely.
|
|
jilli
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 6
|
Post by jilli on Aug 12, 2009 13:28:35 GMT -5
I agree with u 65if2007. One of the reasons I believe this report is valid is because Carlessi and Gavazzeni were surprised that their evidence proved that there were 2 Pauls' and they were expecting to find one. What better way to prove Faul is not Paul, then to have 2 disbelievers set out to prove we are wrong and finding out we are right in believing there were 2 Pauls'?
I also believe Faul is gearing up to saying that he has said all along that he replaced Paul and that no one should be surprised.
|
|