|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 10, 2004 0:51:11 GMT -5
So here is a project I've been working on and finished a while ago, posted it at M4E, got some positive responses, and I hope I'll get some positive responses here too. I'm not really trying to promote PIA here, just trying to show SK is a fake. First off, I'll be posting links to every picture and fade on this page, so it doesn't load all at once. I'm not supposed to hotlink any of SK's fades or pics, so I transfered them to imageshack, with the same name as the original. Every link opens in a new window. Really, look at each pic, don't just skim through it. It's worth it. 1) Now here we see SK comparing a pic of Paul smiling, with the photo of "Faul" before surgery. NOW he's saying it's him after "the first round" of plastic surgery. Hooray! You changed your story! Now why couldn't you compare "Bill" with Paul having the same expression? Strike 1. It looks like you scaled the pics from hair to chin. Strike 2. ALWAYS THE EYES. If you scale them up by the eyes, it looks like this. And for those at M4E who think it's flipped, I made a quickie for you. They match up a lot better, huh? And I'm using HIS OWN pics to prove my point. 2)img63.exs.cx/img63/5053/b_n_verif.gifimg55.exs.cx/img55/769/billyonbilly.gifDo you know what those tell us? They tell us that SK does know how to line up fades the correct way, but purposely doesn't match the ones of pre and post '66 Paul by the eyes, just so he can fool the people who don't understand how fades work. 3)img57.exs.cx/img57/3466/definitive.gifOnce again, he's not matching them up by the eyes. And the expression is different. If he did match these up by the eyes it would look like this. 4) img55.exs.cx/img55/5585/f_p.gifWow SK, your fades are too fast. Calm down. So, I convinced myself that Paul was never replaced with these pics, almost a year ago. I drew lines from feature to feature, each one lining up. I did this with a simple program called "paint". I didn't have Photoshop yet. Sorry, getting off topic. Anyway, once again, you're not matching them up by the eyes. If you did: img38.exs.cx/img38/9028/f_p_fp.gif5)img2.exs.cx/img2/8800/ears.gifThat would make a pretty good PIA fade. The overall head sape matches up pretty well. But his left eye appears, then disappears, meaning the angle is off. He uses this to show us that the ear changes. Yeah, these pics are taken like 35 - 40 years apart. Your ears change as you age. Don't belive me? Google it. 6)img57.exs.cx/img57/6892/faul_scar_map.gifWhat the hell? They're called wrinkles, SK. You get wrinkles when you age. 7)img52.exs.cx/img52/4614/faking_apotheosis.gifFrom here. Thanks for telling us the source of the "doctored" photo. 8)img64.exs.cx/img64/2923/james_paul_different_angle.gifIf Paul was supposedly replaced between the time period of those two shots, you'd be hounded for the ears not matching up, even though the angles are different. Once again, this shows he know how to make fades correctly. 9) img66.exs.cx/img66/806/hey_jude.gifSame story as #1, 3 and 4. Match them up by the eyes, SK. While making the correct version of this fade, I found the arrows real annoying, so I did my best to take them out. Here. Yes, I know, the nose and lips. Make up, lighting, camera, are all elements to how much a fade will match up. 10)img52.exs.cx/img52/9870/with_let.gifWow. When I look at this fade, one question comes to mind: WTF? When Un-King was making this fade, he must have "Taken The Red Pill". Tell me if anything matches up. What's that? You can't? Oh well, I guess SK ran out of pics of Paul without shadow on his face. I won't even try to make a fade of this, because what it comes down to is this. That's pretty much what you're trying to analize. Congrats Un-King, you win The Worst Fade Ever Award! Also, I thought "Faul" had a taller head? 11) img14.exs.cx/img14/8734/p_f.gifFor the 20th time, you've been a naughty boy by not matching it up by the darn eyes! *and claiming Faul's face is long* img39.exs.cx/img39/7786/p_f_fp.gif12)Here, on the 60 B.S. forum, he asks us where is "Faul's" jawbone? I know where it went. Suprise! IT DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE. Yippee! 13)I saved the best for last. Here's a quote from the 60IFer's Bible. 60IF. So John is jealous of Paul's corpse? Instead of thinking "oh god, I lost my best friend" he compares Paul's corpse to the lyrics of a song he probably didn't even write yet, then gets upset because Paul's mangled face looks like a walrus?Come on, just from reading that, you can tell 60IF is a SUN KING IS NAKED!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Oct 10, 2004 22:46:03 GMT -5
Nice work, FP. I don't agree with your conclusions, but it's a good presentation. Not to beat a comatose horse, but this is another one that shows red pepper wasn't stretched: Regarding why some of the PID fades didn't match the eyes, they were attempting to show the difference in eye spacing. They would match the head-to-chin or eye-to-nose distance to show how Paul's eyes were wider: The eye-to-nose distance is probably the more accurate measurement anyway, since the chin and jaw position are more dependent on how far the mouth is open. In order to get the eyes to match in your fade, the chin, jaw, mouth and nose don't line up as well as in the first one. Of course everything can't match at the same time if these are two different faces.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 10, 2004 23:07:01 GMT -5
Pepper pic: I don't remeber saying it was stretched... Hey Jude fade: No matter how you scale those pics, it won't make a good fade, Paul's head is leaning back more. But thanks.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Oct 10, 2004 23:14:28 GMT -5
Pepper pic: I don't remeber saying it was stretched... You may not have, but it's treated like [EDIT] a proven fact by many of the PIAers who post here.[/EDIT]
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 10, 2004 23:17:26 GMT -5
You may not have, but it's treated like an unquestioned fact over at M4E. Are we talking about M4E? Post that in their forum, that's completely off topic in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 11, 2004 9:13:22 GMT -5
I would like to think you've made a honest effort here, but in trying to show "SK is a fake", the corrected fades only hide the discrepancies better. Since red pepper has been validated, what does that mean for gatefold Faul used in all those fades? In the corrected fade "definitive" Faul's chin lays over Paul's adam's apple, but the fuzziness of that photo makes it not obvious. And the head still balloons up. Aligning the eyes: the heyjude eyes still narrow inwards (look at the outside corners), but it's been made less noticeable. With the differences in the eyes between Paul and Faul, "aligning the eyes" actually provides a lot of flexibility in terms of scaling. The original fades weren't trying to shoehorn a match, they were about communicating discrepancies, differences to look for between these two people.
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Oct 11, 2004 9:42:46 GMT -5
I would like to think you've made a honest effort here, but in trying to show "SK is a fake", the corrected fades only hide the discrepancies better. Since red pepper has been validated, what does that mean for gatefold Faul used in all those fades? In the corrected fade "definitive" Faul's chin lays over Paul's adam's apple, but the fuzziness of that photo makes it not obvious. And the head still balloons up. Aligning the eyes: the heyjude eyes still narrow inwards (look at the outside corners), but it's been made less noticeable. With the differences in the eyes between Paul and Faul, "aligning the eyes" actually provides a lot of flexibility in terms of scaling. The original fades weren't trying to shoehorn a match, they were about communicating discrepancies, differences to look for between these two people. The original fades were about matching them, hence why they were trumpeted as full legal value. None of you said that, and I don't accuse you of it, but they were all about how "perfectly" they matched, anything else would not be "legal" evidence, so I have to disagree with what you say on this one
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 11, 2004 12:12:38 GMT -5
Morph, SK purposely didn't match them up by the eyes so he can exaggerate the "differences". Like I said before, the pics used for the HJ fade aren't at the same angle. Also, I'm not trying to convince you that Paul is alive in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Oct 11, 2004 12:33:51 GMT -5
Since red pepper has been validated, I don't think they match up very well myself.
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 11, 2004 13:23:05 GMT -5
The original fades were about matching them, hence why they were trumpeted as full legal value. None of you said that, and I don't accuse you of it, but they were all about how "perfectly" they matched, anything else would not be "legal" evidence, so I have to disagree with what you say on this one I thought the original fades were about showing differences?
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Oct 11, 2004 13:31:24 GMT -5
yes some of them were, I'm talking about the fades that were made to show that Paul matched Paul and "faul" matched "faul"
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 11, 2004 13:35:01 GMT -5
Morph, SK purposely didn't match them up by the eyes so he can exaggerate the "differences". Like I said before, the pics used for the HJ fade aren't at the same angle. Also, I'm not trying to convince you that Paul is alive in this thread. True the HJ head is more level, Paul's tilted slightly, but within that degree it would have very little effect on the eye width and spacing ratios, certainly not as much as the fade indicates. The eye spacing would be more impacted by turning the head to the left or right, not up or down, but both heads are oriented the same in this manner. I get the feeling you all know this already.
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 11, 2004 13:36:21 GMT -5
I don't think they match up very well myself. The only thing that's a stretch is that comment.
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 11, 2004 13:38:55 GMT -5
yes some of them were, I'm talking about the fades that were made to show that Paul matched Paul and "faul" matched "faul" What about them?
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 11, 2004 16:31:30 GMT -5
True the HJ head is more level, Paul's tilted slightly, but within that degree it would have very little effect on the eye width and spacing ratios, certainly not as much as the fade indicates. The eye spacing would be more impacted by turning the head to the left or right, not up or down, but both heads are oriented the same in this manner. I get the feeling you all know this already. In my HJ fade, I scaled the pics up by the eyes, which both match. "Faul's" head is looking up at you more, and he isn't raising his eyebrows, unlike the other one.
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Oct 11, 2004 18:40:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 12, 2004 12:05:47 GMT -5
In my HJ fade, I scaled the pics up by the eyes, which both match. "Faul's" head is looking up at you more, and he isn't raising his eyebrows, unlike the other one. OK, allow me to respond with some more fades. ;D To be honest, I'm burned out looking at them, but just to illustrate some points... OK, we have these two: and both purported to matching the eyes. Using Paul to equalize them, then overlaying the Fauls, I got this: So what's going on? As far as angles, I tried this, it's odd looking, but to me an acceptable match: Obviously, due to tilt and angle, the ears move, but they move together, in the expected direction. Further, in the b/w photo, Paul's turning his head a lot with respect to his shoulders, and it's causing his lower jaw to pull to the side a little, again, in the expected direction. But despite these differences, this is the same person. If the first two fades were valid, the Fauls should match as well as the Paul fade.
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Oct 12, 2004 14:27:05 GMT -5
So what's going on? As far as angles, I tried this, it's odd looking, but to me an acceptable match: Obviously, due to tilt and angle, the ears move, but they move together, in the expected direction. Further, in the b/w photo, Paul's turning his head a lot with respect to his shoulders, and it's causing his lower jaw to pull to the side a little, again, in the expected direction. But despite these differences, this is the same person. If the first two fades were valid, the Fauls should match as well as the Paul fade. Ummm, ok...either you weren't holding your mouth right when you made your Hey Jude/Old Paul fade, or you just became so indifferent about it you did a half-hearted job. Those two pics match about as well as the two pre-67 pics you are fading, you just have to have it scaled and lined up properly...something many fades (including a few of my own) are lacking. Of the four pics the Hey Jude has his head out of position the most as it is tilted forward, but the perspective in the ones Flaming Pie used to compare are more true to each other because all of them are taken from different angles and head tilt. It's ok though, I wouldn't even expect you to agree or see the point of this because if you did I would probably go into cardiac arrest... ;D How about this one...I call it "Where's Fauldo" :
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Oct 12, 2004 14:50:32 GMT -5
How about this one...I call it "Where's Fauldo" : A,E,I,K.........was this supposed to be difficult??
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 12, 2004 14:54:30 GMT -5
Yes the alleged replacement is A,E,I,K, and you'll have to take my word for it, I wrote down my answers on a piece of scrap paper before I saw RL's answer. I knew the source of a few but not the majority of the pics, to be fair.
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Oct 12, 2004 17:13:46 GMT -5
A,E,I,K.........was this supposed to be difficult?? No, RedLion, it wasn't. When you've looked at all the hundreds of pics of Paul a few thousand times it isn't difficult to place the sources on them so you'll know if it's pre or post '67. This was merely for entertainment purposes. Yes the alleged replacement is A,E,I,K, and you'll have to take my word for it, I wrote down my answers on a piece of scrap paper before I saw RL's answer. I knew the source of a few but not the majority of the pics, to be fair. Now JoJo, why wouldn't I believe you, humm? You probably could have done this with my grannies really thick eye glasses on...like I could have GAWD haven't we looked at these pics about a bizillion times now! LOL! I will confess that the original intent of this collage was to show that Macca has a different look about him across that 4 year period (64-68) on both sides of November '66. There are differences that can be seen in those in the 64-66 group as well as the 66-68 group, yet there are some striking similarities as well (I won't elaborate as you can just look and see). But to be honest with you, I'm so burnt out on this subject that I decided to make a little game of sorts out of it. And I only know the source of about half of those pics because I made them from my own books/DVDs/magazines, etc. I think the other half were from all of those pics I've snagged on the internet from various sources...I think a couple of them may even be Andrew Spooners pictures Maybe I will paint a striped shirt and silly hat and glasses on him and find another collage-type background and put his image in copious locations... JUST KIDDING! Believe it or not I DO have a life ;D
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 12, 2004 17:46:39 GMT -5
Hehe, ok you got me there, a test of whether i can spot an unadorned pre or post pic is not really much of a challenge for me at this point, and probably for some of the more studious ones here as well. Some have tried with cropping and such, but really, that could be a challenge with a pic of someone I know, if you lose enough visual information. Yes it was entertaining, who doesn't like a fun quiz? Not to belabor what's obviously my position, but that was the point wasn't it? Enough similarities to make the differences irrelevant. (or explained away logically) But I'll stop now, LOL. ;D Happily, so do I, haha! Otherwise this would get to be all too much.
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 12, 2004 21:07:11 GMT -5
Ummm, ok...either you weren't holding your mouth right when you made your Hey Jude/Old Paul fade, or you just became so indifferent about it you did a half-hearted job. Those two pics match about as well as the two pre-67 pics you are fading, you just have to have it scaled and lined up properly...something many fades (including a few of my own) are lacking. I guess I didn't make it clear...those Fauls are scaled with each other based on how they each scaled with Paul in the two "matching" fades. Think of it as combining those two fades, using Paul to scale them to each other (it's the same photo), then removing Paul, leaving just the Fauls. If there's a problem with the Faul scaling, you know where to look.
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Oct 13, 2004 2:07:21 GMT -5
I guess I didn't make it clear...those Fauls are scaled with each other based on how they each scaled with Paul in the two "matching" fades. Think of it as combining those two fades, using Paul to scale them to each other (it's the same photo), then removing Paul, leaving just the Fauls. If there's a problem with the Faul scaling, you know where to look. OHHH, I think I understand what you're saying now. Well yea, that will happen the other way too, but in this example you were correct. The problem with the two post-67 pics is that the heads are in different positions though. I'm sure FP was scaling them to the pre-66 pics based on the head position...the same thing would most likely happen going the other way as well. Generally, however, no matter which pics you are overlaying, as long as the orientation of the head and camera angles are fairly close, if the eye sockets are lined up as closely as possible the rest usually falls into place too. Many times the lateral tilt of the head can be compensated for by rotating the overlay pic a bit, but fore and aft tilt, and the turn of the head cannot be. The fore and aft tilt of the head in the Hey Jude pic is what wrecks it with other photos. And I'm rambling and probably preaching to a large choir here. It was in one sense, but it wasn't to belabor your position from my position, or anyone elses for that matter. There are "wierd pics" of him to be found across the decades where he doesn't look quite like the "cute" Beatle (those darn shutters). One that I really didn't enjoy seeing too much was one Andrew Spooner had on his website...the squat head pic...which was probably one of the ugliest pictures of Paul I have ever seen. Even his lips look like they're swollen or something...but to be fair it is probably one of the lowest resolution color pics you'll find as well. This one always looked like the aspect was off to me, sort of like it may have been pulled horizontally. He looks sort of like Moe Howard of the three stooges right after Curly hits him over the head with a frying pan...LOL. To me, this image only loosely resembles Paul McCartney...Keith Allison (from about the same time period) looks more like him than this pic does. But that's just me I suppose... * * * jeesh...I think I finally got the vast majority of my mispellings fixed. I think I've been married to a Philippino lady long enough to where I type with her accent or something...haha!
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Oct 13, 2004 2:23:06 GMT -5
Here's something I put together and posted a while back at M4E. It's "Make Your Own Faul" page. Unfortunately you can't save it, only make a screen capture or something. www.mousefight.com/faul/Fun Fun Fun.
|
|