|
Post by FlamingPie on Jul 12, 2004 18:57:46 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". The first one did fit, I just wanted to make Paul's skin less "pasted" looking.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Jul 12, 2004 19:17:53 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. Those photos appear be proportional only because Faul has his head tilted back farther relative to the camera (observe the difference in the nostrils). It has the effect of shortening his head to better match Paul's. Straight-on shots show that Faul had a taller, narrower head relative to Paul. Look at the top middle button above. Doesn't look like Paul's head to me.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Jul 13, 2004 13:02:17 GMT -5
Those photos appear be proportional only because Faul has his head tilted back farther relative to the camera (observe the difference in the nostrils). It has the effect of shortening his head to better match Paul's. Straight-on shots show that Faul had a taller, narrower head relative to Paul. Look at the top middle button above. Doesn't look like Paul's head to me. See Jonna? And I have a pic somewhere with a very young Paul, with his forhead exposed, and then you'll see more of a similarity. And what about the pic to the right of the one you're talking about? Did Bill have a head implant? No, just a hair cut. And here's another one i did yesterday:
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Jul 13, 2004 19:56:44 GMT -5
wow sparky you managed to find it.. only took you two days and it was one person. for future reference.. DO NOT LUMP ME IN WITH WHAT EVERYONE SAYS I take full responsibility for my own words, no-one elses
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Jul 13, 2004 21:09:40 GMT -5
IMO Faul does have a larger, differently shaped head than Paul. There are many candid photos showing it. But the whole PWR argument doesn't rest on that alone. I think the change in speaking/singing voice is stronger evidence overall.
FP, I don't think you addressed the issue of camera angle in those photos. Without identical camera angle, no valid comparisons can be made.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Jul 14, 2004 9:59:30 GMT -5
this whole thread is going nowhere fast of course you can fit heads on other bodies. Again, it has been done since the exstence of movie magazines. If you're too young to remember them, go buy some. Today's "celebrities" do enough raunchy stuff on their own that photo composites aren't seen as often as they once were ;D You could fit my head (big hair and all ;D) onto Annette Funicello's body --- and I'm definitely no Annette Funicello. About five years ago, my husband put his head onto the neck of another guy, in a photo with a certain celebrity. Looked "real", even though the "original" body belongs to a much larger man. I'll guarantee you that you could fit one particular Dolly Parton impersonator's head on the "real" Dolly's body, because she and Dolly have the same height and figure. She has even fooled Dolly's friends and family onstage at Dollywood. It's documented, so don't tell me "no one is that good". She just happens to be one performer that I am personally aware of. There are certainly others. Bottom line: if someone "gets" something from the original post, great. If not, stop trying to beat it into them. The same can be said for Red Lion's negative comps. If you "get" something from viewing his original post, great. If not, that's fine, move along. Much to Red Lion's credit, he is not arguing with people over his post. "Whatever" happened to Paul happened almost 40 years ago. You are unlikely to find something "carved in stone" detailing it all, after all these years. People are here, putting pieces together, and drawing their own conclusions. No one here is trying to "force" the PIA-ers to believe PID, and the same respect should be shown to the PID-ers. You "see it" or you don't. You "get it" or you don't. And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me who does or doesn't. My home, family and friends are what "really" matter to me.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jul 14, 2004 19:26:51 GMT -5
....very well said!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Jul 15, 2004 1:05:06 GMT -5
WELL SAID, XPT, WELL SAID!!!!!!!! I would you the word masterpiece in caps but I won't I"ll just use, hmm, OK,
F-A-B-U-L-O-U-S!
See, I agree. My family, friends, my associates, my professional life, my philosophic beliefs, religious beliefs, and the overall direction of life in these 50 states, and the entertainment industry AS A WHOLE is what I think about most.
I am not on a campaign to win converts (actually, I have just ONE friend that really I wish could see it, but, they can't) and I don't think there is any reason to get vitriolic and pissy about Bill. At all.
I don't like to read the harsh, negative stuff directed at Bill. If you think he plays it off with conceit or that he is vain, or tough to get along with? Well, why should you care? Yo don't have interreactions with him? Is it your business? No. And you know who you are. And chances are, you don't post here, but at an older forum...........no names please................
What's Bill done to you?
Did you by SGLHCB? The White Album? Abbey Road? Hey Jude? Did you like them?
Did you enjoy Bill's work before you knew?
What has changed?
You were paying for his work. And while at the time of the transition, you were hearing both JPM and Bill, in a strange, overlapping way, you enjoyed it, you still enjoyed the Beatles.
As fickle as the Record Industry is, without Bill coming along to keep the ball rolling, all the posthumous Paul songs and vocals WOULD NEVER HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT OF DAY.
Blackbird, the SPLHCB tunes, some MMT stuff, etc, and no doubt some tunes eventually sung by Bill, would have gone unpublished, undistributed.
And the Lennon-McCartney authorship situation keeps it all true and right, while still letting Bill be Paul. As long as any part of those songs was ammended or embellished by John in ANY SMALL WAY, Lennon's living participation in such songs makes ALL of that posthumous material eligible for that claim of authorship. As for example the, we thoerize, songs that Brian purchased as a buy-out from ghost writers for the movie "Help!." So, it may be a FACT that at least those 3 or so songs were not penned by either John or Paul TO ANY DEGREE, yet, through purchase and contract agreement are legally SAID TO BE their creative output.
The "Lennon-McCartney" publishing credit is like a all encompassing folder for all material deemed LEGALLY created by them, even if they NEVER touched touched those songs. Legally, John and Paul wrote them, and the estate that owns Lennon-McCartney (MJ???!!) earns monies on those "music for hire" tunes that Epstein snagged for convenience lo those many years ago. The real authors took a sum and signed away their legal right to be associated with them. Happens EVERY day in the music biz. They were no doubt delighted to get the money and be associated with the Beatles.
Although their contract probably forbade them EVER mentioning or publicizing that they actually wrote them. Contracts like that are common. Its like selling your baby. Or putting him up for adoption. The real biological mother loses ALL state recognised relationship with that child. You may have pushed him through the canal, but LEGALLY he is no longer your son.
Which leads me to an interesting idea---suppose the elder McCartney ADOPTED Bill as his son, adopted Bill who may have previously changed his name LEGALLY to Paul McCartney.
Legally, then, Faul IS McCartneys son....................and LEGALLY he is Mike McGear's brother..................leading to the idea that ALL of the property that may have become Bill's property during the time of replacement camd about LEGALLY. HE legally INHERITED everything he got as a legal sibling. Although Paul may have had NO will at his young age, an appointed counsel, or the writ of a judge could have seen to this. Also, Paul's property may have gone to his father, who in turn had legal right as OWNER to contractually, with Apple or EMI, give permission of use to either, who then in turn had power to grant use or posession of such property to a contract employee, Bill. Also, under contracts of unknown natures, PERHAPS one contract stipulation with Bill was that he NEVER divulge the specifics, or his previous ID, or the real situation with Paul. This could be a complete contract issue, really.
And all of these contracts are legal, binding, and liable to be upheld. As a performing entity, as one representing the name of Pau McCartney, and contractually enebled to do so (providing EMI had LEGALLY procured the use of Paul's name in perpetuity, this can be done) then EMI HAD the LEGAL right to elect Bill to be legal representative of the copywritten name, Paul McCartney.
I can be so far flung one day, and stupid the next. Or, like today, stupidly far-flung. Is flung passed tense for"fling?" Is there a "flanged", or a "flingted"?
I guess not. It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that "fling."
Do-wah, do-wah, do-wah, do-wah, do-wah, do-wah...........
|
|
|
Post by Frightwolf on Aug 8, 2004 1:24:57 GMT -5
See Jonna? And I have a pic somewhere with a very young Paul, with his forhead exposed, and then you'll see more of a similarity. And what about the pic to the right of the one you're talking about? Did Bill have a head implant? No, just a hair cut. And here's another one i did yesterday: The face fits PERFECTLY and looks like it's SUPPOSED to be there. Probably cuz it's the same face of the same Paul.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 8, 2004 3:21:05 GMT -5
again.....it can be done with anyone; so cutting-and-pasting heads doesn't "prove" anything, one way or the other. [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Dunno2[1].gif"]
|
|
|
Post by Frightwolf on Aug 8, 2004 11:39:43 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... Please excuse me for cussing a bit, but I think it's bullcrap that whenever we have a picture that matches up, it's doctored, but if it doesn't, it was left untouched. Gimme a break. That is sooooo 60asifish.
|
|
|
Post by Frightwolf on Aug 8, 2004 11:42:10 GMT -5
again.....it can be done with anyone; so cutting-and-pasting heads doesn't "prove" anything, one way or the other. [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Dunno2[1].gif"] I'll say it again: It DOES prove something. It FITS perfectly, and you can say what you want about it being done since the beginning of time, but the fact is that it doesn't look like it had to be resized or anything. Why? Probably because post-66 Paul's head is the same size and shape and doesn't need to be morphed. Paul lives
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 8, 2004 11:57:26 GMT -5
Gimme a break. That is sooooo 60asifish. Well if that's yer opinion, fine, but why are ya here? Don't let the door hitcha in the butt on the way out.
|
|
|
Post by Frightwolf on Aug 8, 2004 14:06:51 GMT -5
Well if that's yer opinion, fine, but why are ya here? Don't let the door hitcha in the butt on the way out. I'm here to debate, not hearing uneducated guesses of John wearing lifts and every post-66 Paul that matches pre-66 (and there are thousands) are being doctored. Why are YOU debating if all you can do is claim that everything's doctored? I'm bringing sense into this conversation, and so is everyone from M4E, when we say that claiming all "Faul" pics are doctored is bogus and can't be backed up.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 8, 2004 15:48:35 GMT -5
I'm here to debate, not hearing uneducated guesses of John wearing lifts and every post-66 Paul that matches pre-66 (and there are thousands) are being doctored. Why are YOU debating if all you can do is claim that everything's doctored? I'm bringing sense into this conversation, and so is everyone from M4E, when we say that claiming all "Faul" pics are doctored is bogus and can't be backed up. You are obviously NOT here to debate. You seem to only be here to argue & critisize & clog up our nice little forum. One thing's for sure, you're not here to learn anything new, or to open yer mind to other possibilities. You're bringing sense into this?? Show me where I EVER said all Faul pics are doctored.... or most of'em! A bold-faced lie as a means to get in the last word isn't my idea of bringing anything into a conversation. I think you've just about struck out.
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Aug 8, 2004 17:30:59 GMT -5
Frightwolf. Hi. Um. I agree with the cloudiness of issues like John or Paul weernig lifts and all that kind of nusubstantiated kind of rubbish, but really. Itr is true. Cutting a face or head means nothing. I used to do that as a full time job. No one could tell the difference. In a way, I am surprised that no one has yet accused me directly of manipulating images. Many people know my background. Search the web for false images of celebrities doing "non-reputable" acts. You will find that most are fake. Most look fake, but nontheless, their faces do fit in size and shape on the heads of many porn stars.
Frightwolf, Sorry to disagree with you, but I have to call things as I see them.
As far as the "was it doctored" or is it "stretched" In a different post I have gone into a little detail about stretchnig. This is not done on purpose. It is unintentional with newer technology and cameras. With competition comes innovation. With competition also comes different brands and slightly different features. This means that not all cameras and developement processes are the same. I am going to try to create a compendium of the variations of post 66 Paul. I think there may be a better reason for all of this Faul variation. PIA may have a point. Post 66 Paul images may be unreliable. Some may look more like pre-66 Paul than others. But it may not be because some were altered to intentionally look like Paul. It may be because larger format color camera equipment became much more diverse and cheaper in the late 60s. but not all created the same type of images. Therefore, we should see a wider range of post-66 images of Paul that don't match each other. This is just a hypothesis. Probably one that can't be proven, but then agani, i don't think that the intentional manipulation of post 66 images to look more like younger Paul can be proven either. It still remains though, that some post 66 images (I mean only some) do not appear to be Paul, even though I believe it is.
|
|