|
Post by FlamingPie on Jul 10, 2004 16:40:23 GMT -5
What do you see here? It should be obvious, I didn't work that hard on it. Before you look at the title of the pic, just tell me what your first impression was.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 10, 2004 17:50:02 GMT -5
I think you grafted the eyes from a different picture on there for one thing. Of course that picture is a post '66 paul pic that we've seen many times here before, and I'm pretty sure I know the pic you got the eyes from. Ah ok, you also put some of the face of the pre '67 pic on top of the post '66 one. I'll hold off on looking at the name of the pic...
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jul 10, 2004 18:22:48 GMT -5
Obviously an original picture of Faul with the face all muffled. Possibly with James Paul's eyes over it but it's hard to tell.
|
|
|
Post by lj on Jul 10, 2004 18:58:34 GMT -5
it's a faul pic with paul's face "cut and paste" over it. i can even tell you which pics you used. now what is that suposed to prove?
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Jul 10, 2004 20:09:40 GMT -5
It's the face of JP pasted on the face of (PF)aul. Just the face. What does it prove? It proves how perfectly the face fits on the neck and forhead. Here are the original pics: Edit: Refresh your browser by pressing F5 on your keyboard. I made the pic in my first post better.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 10, 2004 22:01:56 GMT -5
Well you took the cut 'n paste and then smoothed out the edges on the final result... (correct me if I'm wrong) Your original: Second version:
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Jul 10, 2004 23:01:26 GMT -5
Well you took the cut 'n paste and then smoothed out the edges on the final result... (correct me if I'm wrong) Well, I got Phtoshop (elements 2.0) a while ago. For the first one, I used the magic wand tool. I got a perfect copy of his face all around, but not the complete inside. The second time, I decided to use the selection brush tool, and got all of the inside, but to much of the outside. Then I erased the parts (of that layer) that stuck out. That's mostly it. Plus for both pics, I increased the red midtones on Paul's face to match the lighting on Faul.
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Jul 11, 2004 9:24:55 GMT -5
forget about what I can see.. you know what that tells me? that tells me that if an amateur with photo shop can fake a picture then anyone with money and talent can make anyone including faul look any way they want us to see him.
perfect example of photo doctoring..
btw FP the first picture was disturbing, he looked like a reject from a plastics factory.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 11, 2004 9:30:16 GMT -5
btw FP the first picture was disturbing, he looked like a reject from a plastics factory. Yep.... I was gonna say it looks like P(F)aul with really bad acne!
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Jul 11, 2004 9:35:43 GMT -5
hahaha yeah its pretty weird. i'm not knocking your efforts flaming pie, nice try but it just proves what we have been saying about doctoring pictures...
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Jul 11, 2004 11:54:36 GMT -5
Okay, like I said, I didn't work that hard on this. And yes, professionals at photoshop can make you belive anything. Can you show me a pic where a professional doctored a Paul/Faul pic, with the undoctored version next to it?
And tell me where you can see a taller head/forhead? Pauls face fits perfectly on (PF)auls! And the neck is also 100%!
(Refresh your browser again)
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Jul 11, 2004 15:58:21 GMT -5
back up sparky, show me where i said that Okay, like I said, I didn't work that hard on this. And yes, professionals at photoshop can make you belive anything. Can you show me a pic where a professional doctored a Paul/Faul pic, with the undoctored version next to it? look through the anthology book, plenty their for you to play with on your new toy.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jul 11, 2004 16:16:15 GMT -5
I bear repeating myself(for the millioneth time!) but the heads are out of proportion to each other in the two pics presented. James Paul's head is bigger(in other words his body would be larger than Faul's if comparing the whole body if you continued the pic) and that's how the facial features are able to fit each other and that's how the fades somewhat 'work' on Paulisnotdead.com(along with the fades being extremely slow). Does anyone see what I am talking about?
P.S. There's also more to getting the eyes, nose and mouth to match up(in this case only moderately). The shape of the face has to match up, i.e. the outer edges, chins, cheeks and the shape of the head also. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Jul 11, 2004 18:04:00 GMT -5
There is a Judy Garland lok-a-like in a current Broadway show about the life of Peter Allen. The show is called, "The Boy from Oz." (FYI, Peter Allen wrote "I HOnestly Love You", and "When My baby Smiles at Me I Go to Rio", and was married to Liza Minelli for a brief time in the late 60's. Making Judy Garland his mother-in-law. (!!!!)
Anyway, the PR for the show features pictures of this actress that, especially from the angle displayed, looks SCARILY like the very dead Ms. Garland. Angles matter.
But, how about a full frontal head shot...........this is where things are more telling. I have an idea about this---will post later........
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Jul 11, 2004 18:22:26 GMT -5
back up sparky, show me where i said that Not specifically you, not in this thread either, but it's what all the PIDers say. I wasn't asking you where I can find "doctored" pics, but:
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Jul 11, 2004 18:42:29 GMT -5
Not specifically you, not in this thread either, but it's what all the PIDers say. really? where? are you asking us to do all the work for you?
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Jul 11, 2004 19:09:42 GMT -5
..Can you show me a pic where a professional doctored a Paul/Faul pic, with the undoctored version next to it? this is just my opinion, but it seems it unlikely that someone going to the trouble to 'doctor' a photo would leave an 'unaltered' copy in circulation. Now, having said that, the first button in this set has always looked very strange to me. It does not, IMO, look like a 60's photo of Paul. and please, FP, don't paint us all with the same brush. Not everyone believes the rantings and the extremes of the 'sun cult'.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Jul 11, 2004 19:13:11 GMT -5
The one on the top left looks like Billy Joel.
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Jul 12, 2004 4:27:03 GMT -5
The one in the top left looks like it was overexposed if you ask me, but more importantly, this proves once again that using photos is too unreliable, however, I think that if the current pic was the one fp posted it wouldn't have been as obvious (spend some more time next time ) but lets not start screaming "doctored" from the rooftops again because of this, we must always keep in mind our time period as opposed to the one being discussed, photoshop is more than they had back in those days, so although its easy for fp, for the "Illuminati" it would not have been
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Jul 12, 2004 10:19:38 GMT -5
....we must always keep in mind our time period as opposed to the one being discussed, photoshop is more than they had back in those days, so although its easy for fp, for the "Illuminati" it would not have been wrong, sorry. As long as there have been "movie magazines", there have been cut-and-paste jobs done on celebrity photos.
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Jul 12, 2004 16:40:10 GMT -5
I know there has been airbrushing, but can you point out an example of "cut and paste" jobs, as I have yet to find anything like that
|
|
|
Post by lj on Jul 12, 2004 16:58:25 GMT -5
there was a magazine that eyesbleed posted that had george (cut and paste his face) as robin, and paul (same thing) as batman.... if my memory doesn't fail. i'll try to find those pics again.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Jul 12, 2004 16:59:39 GMT -5
Let's get back on subject. The point is, Paul's face fits perfectly of (PF)aul's face. It all matches up.
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Jul 12, 2004 17:12:50 GMT -5
ah yes, I remember now, no need to post it, thanks though. Yes Pauls and Fauls faces seem to fit perfectly, but I'm sure that you can find others that don't, so the pictures point is, as it was, moot.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 12, 2004 17:14:42 GMT -5
I don't see how we can be sure, all we have is one picture sitting atop another, you could have a picture of Ernest Borgnine under there for all I know. Ok, I'm sure you don't, but to quote my 9th grade algebra teacher, show your work... And it wasn't fair to quickly try to toss out the first try, when it didn't "fit".
|
|