Originally posted by lifecitizen
What scientific proof?
Your link from another of your posts goes to a blog, how is that proof?
The article is on this thread, along w/ other information:
only1rad.proboards.com...
A translation of the Italian article is here:
ASK WHO WAS THE "BEATLE"
22
Fabio Gigante Andriola and Alessandra | 15 July 2009
Francesco Gavazzeni, 40 years, information technology, and Gabriella Carlesi, 51, medical legal, are superperiti cases of Ilaria Alpi, the monster of
Florence and
the attack
to the Pope in 1981
Photo: Joerg Klaus
To write a song like Yesterday is better to have a box round skull. If instead we wanted a bit more rock, we do Get back ", it is preferable that the
skull is more narrow and long. The fact that the two songs have the same author leads straight to the heart of the puzzle, which for forty years has a
name, even a symbol: PID (Paul Is Dead). The argument in Paul McCartney is obviously that, apart from Yesterday and Get back, has written dozens of
pieces of pop-rock success. Paul is one of the most curious, persistent and articulate urban legends of all times: one that supports his death (kept
secret), already in autumn 1966 and the replacement with a double to continue the triumphant and lucrative career. Until today...
Read more at
translate.google.com...
25C2%25ABbeatle%25C2%25BB-.aspx
Do you have any more sources?
Photo & video comparisons:
only1rad.proboards.com...
Voice print info - from my blog at
plasticmacca.blogspot.com...:
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.
(Reeve, Andru J., Turn Me On, Dead Man: The Complete Story of the Paul McCartney Death Hoax, Ann Arbor: Popular Culture, Ink, 1994: 69).
Here are clips of the three songs Dr. Truby sampled.
www.pauldryden.co.uk...
Here is the "ay" sound from "Yesterday" (1965) vs. "Hey Jude" (1968):
www.pauldryden.co.uk...
A spectral analysis shows that the word "Hey" contains more harmonics than "Yesterday." This is shown by more red in the "Hey" part of the
display.
This indicates a different voice b/c there are more harmonics in the voice that sang "Hey" than "Yesterday."
Different voice prints mean they are different people, at least according to US law. This is b/c they are considered "identifying particulars" and
"immutable characteristics" unique to each individual.
[T]he term "record" means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not
limited to, ... other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph...
5 USCS § 552a(4).
[T]he term "means of identification" means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a
specific individual, including any--
... (B) unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation; ...
United States v. Hawes, 523 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. Pa. 2008); United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. S.C. 2008). ...
[T]he district court found that duty titles were not comparable to captured immutable characteristics such as finger or voice prints or photographs.
The district court reached these conclusions because an individual's duty title changes over time, because multiple people can concomitantly have the
same or similar duty titles, and because each individual has predecessor and successor holders of the same duty titles. We agree with the reasoning
and conclusions of the district court. In circumstances where duty titles pertain to one and only one individual, such as the examples of identifying
particulars provided in the statutory text (finger or voice print or photograph), duty titles may indeed be "identifying particulars" as that term
is used in the definition of "record" in the Privacy Act. For the reasons detailed by the district court, however, the [**9] duty titles in this
[*188] case are not "identifying particulars" because they do not pertain to one and only one individual.
Pierce v. Dep't of the United States Air Force, 512 F.3d 184, 188 (5th Cir. Miss. 2007).